of a century ago, and ever since then have studied and practised
constitutional law, and I am not here to stultify my judgment by
allowing sentiment and impulse to influence my decision.

Those opposing the report of the committee, with few exceptions, admit
that it was not the intent and purpose, when the Constitution and
Restrictive Rules were amended, to admit women as lay delegates. They
claim, however, that times have changed, and now propose to force a
construction upon the language not intended by the laity, the Annual
Conferences, or the General Conference at the time of the amendment. Can
this be done without an utter violation of law? I answer, No.

In the able address read by Bishop Merrill, containing the views of the
Board of Bishops, he says:


"For the first time in our history several 'elect ladies' appear,
regularly certified from Electoral Conferences, as lay delegates to this
body. In taking the action which necessitates the consideration of the
question of their eligibility, the Electoral Conferences did not consult
the Bishops as to the law in the case, nor do we understand it to be our
duty to define the law for these Conferences; neither does it appear
that any one is authorized to decide questions of law in them. The
Electoral Conferences simply assumed the lawfulness of this action,
being guided, as we are informed, by a declarative resolution of the
General Conference of 1872, defining the scope of the word 'laymen," in
answer to a question touching the classification and rights of ordained
local and located ministers. Of course, the language of that resolution
is carried beyond its original design when applied to a subject not
before the body when it was adopted, and not necessarily involved in the