but their voices were not heard amid the roar of victory. Who can go
back of the interpretation of the supreme court of the Church?"

It is amazing that brethren will stand here to-day and utterly ignore
the decision of our Supreme Court in defining who are laymen. Could
the utterances of any Court be more definite and clear than those of the
General Conference when it said, "The General Conference holds that
in all matters connected with the election of lay delegates the word
'laymen' must be understood to include all the members of the Church who
are not members of the Annual Conferences"? This decision must include
women among the laity of the Church. I know it is said that this means
the classification of local preachers. We respond that that only appears
from the debate. The General Conference was settling a great principle
in which the personal rights and privileges of two thirds of the
membership of our Church were involved. Surely, our Supreme Court would
have made a strange decision had they, in defining laymen, excepted
women. Let us see how it would look in cold type had they said, "The
General Conference holds that in all matters connected with the election
of lay delegates the word laymen must be understood to include all the
members of the Annual Conferences, _and who are not women_." We would
have become the laughing-stock of Christendom had we made such an
utterance. The Church universal in all ages has always divided its
membership into two great classes, and two only, the clergy and
the laymen, using the terms laity and laymen synonymously and
interchangeably. See Bingham's "Antiquities," Blackstone's
"Commentaries," Schaffs "History," and kindred authorities. It is sheer
trifling for sensible males to talk about a distinction between lay_men_
and lay_women_.

Women were made class-leaders, stewards, and Sunday-school