REFERENCE has been made before now of the failing health of Bishop Beebe. On this account the General Conference of 1902 assigned him to only three Annual Conferences: two in Arkansas and the North Carolina. In the fall of this year he was so feeble that Bishops Lane and Williams found it necessary to assist him in his Arkansas Conferences. He managed to hold his North Carolina Conference unaided, except using such help as the preachers could render him. At the conclusion of his Conferences he went home a very sick man.

During the winter he rallied. In March, 1903, he suffered a relapse. In April his improvement was so pronounced that he thought, for a while, he would be able to meet the bishops' meeting in May. But disease had made its inroad upon his once strong constitution and blasted his expectations as a snowball melts away under the rays of the sun. He grew worse each day and, at length, locomotion became impossible.

Realizing that the end was near, he talked with his wife of his business affairs, made his will, advised his children, and then patiently waited the summons.

About a week before his death, being supported by Rev. A. L. Scott, he was lifted from his bed, preached a short sermon, had his small audience sing the old Conference hymn he had sung many times before: And are we yet aliveAnd see each other's face, then said to those about him:

Let me lie down; my work is ended.

The Nashville General Conference appointed Bishop Phillips to the following Conferences as his first field of labor. Tennessee Conference, West Tennessee Conference, Texas Mission Conference, West Texas Conference, East Texas Conference.

Upon the death of Bishop Beebe, the North Carolina Conference was added to Bishop Phillips' Conferences, and the two Arkansas Conferences were divided among the other bishops. A movement of special interest to the Church was the establishment of a mission in Cleveland, Ohio, at the opening of the quadrennium. Some members of our Church removed from Georgia to the Ohio city. At first they joined the Methodist Episcopal Church. But desiring their own denomination, they wrote Bishop Holsey, who in turn advised them to write Bishop Lane, who presided over Kentucky. The mission was organized. L. E. Shy, a local preacher, rendered splendid service in gathering the membership together and holding the new enterprise till Bishop Lane appeared on the scene.

Shy was greatly assisted by his brother, R. A. Wilson, a hard-working layman, and afterward by Peter Shy, I. T. Shy, Carr, and others. Thomas H. Copeland was the first regular minister sent to Cleveland by Bishop Lane. He did a splendid work, and in the summer of 1903 celebrated the first anniversary of the Church, Bishops Lane and Phillips being present throughout the exercises. More will be said of this Church in another chapter.

In 1904 the General Conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church met in Chicago, and the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Los Angeles. H. S. Doyle was the fraternal delegate of our Church to the former body, and R. A. Carter to the latter. No bishops were elected at the African Methodist Episcopal General Conference. But the Conference received a congratulatory telegram from President Roosevelt and, during the session, was addressed by Dr. Booker T. Washington.

Looking toward the General Conference of 1906, correspondents to the Christian Index, as early as two years before the assemblage of that body, began to discuss what they thought would be some needy legislation. But the outstanding question that possessed the minds and hearts of most of the writers and thinkers was the election or non-election of an additional bishop.

The death of Bishop Beebe, the advanced ages of Bishops Lane and Holsey, the former being sixty-five years old and the latter seventy-two; the feebleness of Bishop Phillips, who was afflicted with sickness, August 4, 1904, about two years after his election to the episcopal office and had not fully recovered during the quadrennium, were good reasons, in the opinion of many, why an election should obtain at the forthcoming General Conference. Others held that the Church could maintain its activities and at the same time further develop its facilities to meet its needs and responsibilities without the election of anyone to the episcopal office.

These divergent views were exploited by many writers and thinkers throughout the Church. In the Christian Index of March 10, 1906, Bishop Phillips contributed a very lengthy article entitled, “The General Conference and the Question of More Bishops.” Among other things he said:

These views of the author in 1906 had, of course, some influence over the delegates who met in the Eleventh Quadrennial Session in Memphis, Tenn., of this year, as we shall hereafter see. In the Index of March 10, 1906, B. Herron, of the West Tennessee Conference, a young man of great promise, at that time favored the election of more bishops. Among other things he said:

Some years afterwards Herron left the Church and joined the African Methodist Episcopal Church.

T. J Moppins, in the same issue of the Index in which the B. Herron article was published, expressed himself as follows:

In six or seven years after writing the above, Moppins left the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church and joined the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, where he led an active, useful, vigorous life. He returned to the C. M. E. Church in the fall of 1924.

G. C. Parker, who was pastoring at Marion, Ky., in 1906, wrote as follows in the Index of April 7 of that year:

THE Eleventh General Conference met in Memphis, Tenn., May 2, 1906. Bishop L. H. Holsey, the senior of his colleagues, called the body to order at 10:30 A. M. and led in the devotional exercises, being assisted by Bishops Williams, Cottrell, and Phillips. Bishop Lane being absent, Rev. A. K. Hawkins offered a fervent and appropriate prayer.

The organization of the Conference was effected by the election of F. M. Hamilton as the leading Secretary and N. C. Cleaves and G. S. Goodman, Assistants. The roll call developed the fact that 105 clerical delegates and 84 laymen were present.

The time of meeting and adjourning was fixed respectively at 9 A. M. and 2 P. M. The organization was further completed by appointing R. T. Brown, A. L. Jennings, and R. S. Stout a Committee on Rules; B. Herron and J. R. Ramsey, reporters for the various papers; one delegate from each Conference to constitute a Committee on Credentials; H. S. Doyle, J. W. McKinney, and L. H. Brown a Committee on Reception of Fraternal Messengers, and J. C. Martin, E. W. Moseley, and I. S. Person a Committee on Public Worship.

The message of the bishops was written and read by Bishop Holsey. It was a thoughtful document; at the conclusion of the reading, N. T. Patterson led the Conference in singing

Praise God from whom all blessings flow.

Concerning education the message spoke as follows:

The message thought the Publishing House was doing well; the Sunday schools and Children's Day were growing in number, general interest, and influence; that a common Hymnal was very much desired, just like the one being used by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and the Methodist Episcopal Church; that the Missionary and Church Extension Departments of the Church should receive such legislation as would strengthen their stability and increase their efficiency; and that the lives of the deceased bishops should be written and published “so that the history of the Church may be regular and complete.”

This item concerning the death of Bishop Beebe, which occurred during the quadrennium, appears in the message:

Concerning the election of bishops the message said:

The message, so far as its recommendation with respect to the election of bishops was concerned, did not occasion any surprise to the delegates. Many of them had heard a number of times before that a majority of the bishops thought that they had a “sufficient number to do all the necessary episcopal work of the Church.” They heard that conviction in 1900, at Little Rock; they heard it at Columbia in 1898; they heard it in Nashville in 1902; and now they hear it anew in Memphis, in 1906. Bishop Phillips was the only one of the chief pastors who favored an election. With him the election of a bishop involved a great principle. There were palpable reasons why some men never desired an election; and because those reasons were unwarranted and exceedingly reprehensible, Bishop Phillips quietly urged the delegates to resist the non-election progaganda. Just as often as the majority of the bishops recommended no election, just as often did he urge the delegates to resort to all respectable methods possible to pry open the episcopal door. Captious criticism never deterred him in his course. The author of this book really expected a reaction, in favor of an election, to ultimately set in, regardless to what the present might develop.

If all Church politics had been eschewed, there would have been an election of a bishop in this General Conference. How this question was disposed of is not without some interest. The Committee on Episcopacy submitted a majority and a minority report. The majority report follows:

THE General Conference made the following assignment of the bishops for the quadrennium beginning May, 1906, and closing May, 1910:

HITHERTO reference has been made to the educational processes of the Church, the cultivation of the educational spirit; the development of the schools, and their increased and better efficiency. But the years of 1907, 1908, and 1909 witnessed an educational awakening hitherto unknown in all the history of the Church. We do not refer to the personality of the student bodies, as important as that may be; not to the constantly increasing number of students that were being matriculated, and that was no mean achievement; not the religious, moral, and educational atmosphere that pervaded the schools, and that was to be expected; but, rather, the greatly improved financial awakening that was sweeping all over the Church. The financial awakening appeared to be the lowest, as well as the slowest, of all the forces that were being used to carry forward our school activities.

We had been raising money, most assuredly, but not in large and representative amounts. But the Church and her leaders seemed to suddenly realize that if our schools and colleges were to have better equipment, more substantial buildings, better paid teachers, and necessary chemical laboratories, then we must have more money to accomplish these things.

With this realization came the corresponding impulse to transform these ideas into realities.

On the twenty-fourth of July, 1907, Bishop Holsey held his Fourth Inter-Conference Woman's Missionary Convention, in Macon, Ga. The object of the gathering was to raise money for education and missions. A well-prepared program was excellently executed and was attended by great crowds from all parts of Georgia. The following amounts were raised:

Bishop Holsey was the first leader to initiate these Inter-Conference gatherings, which have grown to be very popular throughout the Church. The money went to Churches and to help the school enterprises at Cordele and Barnesville.

After operating for some years the school at Barnesville was finally suspended, but Holsey Institute, at Cordele, has taken on a new lease of life and indicates to become what Bishop Holsey and Dr. G. W. F. Phillips, its long-time faithful and efficient Principal, desired it to eventuate. Another meeting of special significance and importance was the Quarto-Centennial Celebration of Lane College, which took place in Jackson, August 22, 1907. A program suitable for the celebration was well rendered. Bishop Lane, the founder of the school, was much in evidence, despite the fact that he was seventy-four years old. Earnest and faithful, he was successfully carrying forward the work which devolved upon him. Among other leaders present were Bishop C. H. Phillips; W. B. West, Secretary of Missions; R. S. Stout, Secretary of Church Extension; T. J. Moppins; J. W. Gilbert, Professor in Paine College; R. A. Kirk, I. S. Person, E. W. Moseley, J. S. Smothers, D. W. Featherston, and a large number of visitors from the patronizing Conferences of the school, such as Missouri and Kansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Illinois. R. T. Brown, Editor of the Christian Index, made the following observation in that paper of September 7, 1907:

Bishop Lane, writing in the same issue of the Index with Editor Brown, said:

The amount reported at the rally was increased at the close of the Annual Conferences.

The echo of the twenty-fifth anniversary of Lane College had scarcely died on the air before Bishop Williams opened, at Tuscaloosa, Alabama, on August 28, 1907, his second educational convocation. The purpose of the gathering was to awaken interest in the educational movements of the State of Alabama and to become an outstanding expression of the determination of our race group, that it means to be an integral factor in their own education. The meeting was a great success in attendance, in number of distinguished visitors, the attractiveness of the program, the personnel of its participants, and in the amount of money raised.

R. T. Brown, Chairman of the Auditing Committee, submitted this report on Sunday night:

Alabamians greatly rejoiced over their success. It set a new pace in the Church's educational program and greatly relieved the embarrassed condition of the Miles College. Among those present were J. W. Gilbert, C. H. Tobias, J. A. Bray, R. S. Stout, C, L. Bonner, N. F. Haygood, N. C. Cleaves, and J. D. Hammon, D.D., at that time Secretary of Education of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. The services on the Sabbath were of unusual interest. N. F. Haygood, a strong Gospel preacher, delivered the message at 11 A. M.; R. W. Rowe, at 3 P. M., and R. L. Langford at 8 P. M.

The trustees of Miles Memorial College elected James A. Bray, a graduate of Atlanta University, its President, and the Misses Mattie Gaines, Callie Bonner, and Prof. H. A. Knox, members of the faculty, as among the last acts of the historic gathering.

While Bishops Holsey, Lane, and Williams were stirring their districts along educational lines, Bishop Phillips was no less active in Texas. The school at Tyler needed a representative building. So Bishop Phillips planned and executed the First Educational Convocation of the three Texas Conferences.

It met in Dallas, Wednesday, September 25, 1907. Addresses of welcome were delivered by Mr. Hay, Mayor of Dallas; by Dr. J. E. Rankins, Editor of the Texas Christian Advocate, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and Prof. G. H. Harlee, Principal of the Colored High School.

On Thursday night Dr. J. G. Merrill, President of Fisk University, Nashville, Tennessee, addressed the audience. The Jubilee Singers of Texas College sang on this night, as they did also on Friday night.

The program was well arranged and well executed. The services on the Sabbath were inspiring and interesting. The total amount raised was as follows:

This was not only the largest collection ever raised in Texas up to that time, but the largest, at that time, in the history of the Church. These rallies for education awakened the inert activities of the various Conferences and paved the way for larger results, results which make these efforts appear small, if not unattractive.

But, really, the rallies of Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and Texas were great efforts as early as 1907. They were basic and fundamentally necessary for the financial programs which the Church was putting over during those exacting times.

A gathering of peculiar interest was the Tripartite Conference of the bishops of the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church, the African Methodist Episcopal Church, and the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, which met in Washington, D. C., February 12, 1908. It was the first meeting of the kind ever held among Methodist bishops. It was remarkable in the spectacle which it presented, the brotherly fellowship by which it was characterized, and the harmonious action which marked the deliberations.

B. F. Lee, Alexander Watters, and C. H. Phillips were made Secretaries. With the exception of Bishops Handy and Lomax, of the African Methodist Episcopal and African Methodist Episcopal Zion Churches, respectively, all the bishops of the three denominations were present. Sickness preventing their presence, messages of sympathy assuring them of love and deep interest in their spiritual and physical welfare were wired them. Committees on “Federation Among the Bishops,” “Federation Among the Churches,” “Religious Affairs,” “Political and Civic Conditions,” “Liturgy and Uniformity of Service,” “Hymnal and Catechism,” “Transfer and Denominational Exchange,” and “Clerical Vestments” were appointed.

These Committees indicated the trend of thought and deliberations of the bishops.

The following resolution was adopted by a unanimous standing vote:

If any one of the General Conferences ever acted upon this resolution, the author of this book has never been apprised of that fact.

However, interdenominational courtesy demands such an arrangement, and it may yet become an established fact.

On February 17, the bishops visited, by invitation of President Thirkield, Howard University. On behalf of the delegation, addresses were delivered by Bishops Lee, Clinton, and Phillips.

The school enterprise in Holly Springs, Miss., under the direction of Bishop Cottrell, was meeting with unusual success. In the Christian Index of April 2, 1908, he sought to stir the preachers and laymen of his State to rally for the school on Easter Sabbath. Among other things he said:

Bishop Cottrell was not only leading the school enterprise in his native State, but he was also leading the school movements in Arkansas and Louisiana. Editor R. T. Brown of the Index, writing in that paper of April 2, 1908, expressed the conviction that

The collection in 1908 and 1909 for education, while not equal to those of 1907, were, at the same time, far in excess to any year prior to 1907. Bishop Williams raised $6,347.06 at Thomasville, in September, 1909, and a little more than that in Birmingham in September, 1908. It has been shown that Texas raised, in 1907, $11,514.25. It raised in 1908, $10,078, and $10,019.49 in 1909. In the Christian Index of December 16, 1909, Editor R. T. Brown wrote as follows:

There were a number of important happenings in 1908. Mention should be made of the death of J. W. Luckett, a very eloquent preacher and brother beloved at Little Rock, Ark., May 4. Rev. Luckett was a preacher of unusual gifts and power. The Church mourned his death.

THE Twelfth General Conference convened in Augusta, Ga., May 4, 1910. F. M. Hamilton, of the Central Georgia Conference, announced and led in singing the old hymn, “Watchman, Tell Us of the Night,” after which Bishop Lane offered prayer. The second hymn was announced by Bishop Williams; Bishop Cottrell read the Thirty-seventh Psalm, and Bishop Phillips a large part of the seventh chapter of Matthew.

Bishop Lane, by appointment of his colleagues, preached the quadrennial sermon from the text found in 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19. It read:

JAMISON AND STEWART, the new bishops, and the general officers, who were also new, began the work of the quadrennium in high spirit and with happy anticipations.

But the manner of their election was so unusual that people who were superstitiously inclined predicted a nemesis of some kind would overtake them.

Whether it was wise or otherwise, both Bishops Jamison and Stewart began their episcopal labors in their home Conferences, where they were received enthusiastically and most cordially.

IN OUR last chapter allusion was made of coming storm clouds which threatened the peaceable skies of Bishop G. W. Stewart. At the General Board meeting held in Macon, Ga., May, 1912, one could hear behind closed doors rumors of dissatisfaction in connection with the manner with which Bishop Stewart was handling the financial affairs of his Alabama Conferences. There were misunderstandings among the leaders. Under these conditions it did not take but a small effort to put in motion currents of criticisms upon the administration of the bishop that not only embarrassed but seriously effected the harmony of his work, if not throw a shadow upon his Christian life and character.

We are not to give credence to these rumors at this time but merely give the position of Bishop Stewart as well as the position of his critics and then allow our readers to form their own conclusions.

Bishop Stewart called the Trustees of Miles Memorial College to meet at the college on May 22, 1912, at 10 A. M. The Trustees transacted the usual duties connected with their office. In the election of teachers, J. A. Bray, who had been President of the institution for the past four or five years, was removed and Prof. W. A. Bell, of Georgia, was elected to succeed him. It is not within our province to discuss the wisdom of Bray's removal; that was an act purely in the custody of the Trustees of the college.

But there seems to be no doubt of the fact that his removal very greatly estranged the relation between him and Bishop Stewart, causing the leaders of the State to take sides according to their convictions. In smothered tones and muffled voice, men talked of the happenings of the Trustee Board. Finally, the smoldering fires, long pent up, found egress when Dr. Bray published in the Birmingham Herald of June 2, 1912, this statement:

Bishop Stewart made the following reply to the above article of Dr. Bray:

The statement of Dr. Bray and Bishop Stewart's reply speak for themselves. It is pertinent now to study the statement of the Executive Board of Miles Memorial College, as that Board represents and speaks for the Trustees when the Trustee Board is not in session. The Alabama Christian Index, of which Dr. R. T. Brown was at that time the Editor, published the following statement, which was reproduced in the Christian Index of August 22, 1912:

The reply of Bishop Stewart to Dr. Bray's letter and the statement of the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees did not quiet the clamor of the bishop's critics. However, Bishop Stewart continued to travel over the State, visiting various charges and District Conferences. In the Christian Index of August 18, 1912, Dr. A. J. Cobb, the Editor, wrote as follows of the bishop's visit to Jasper, where the District Conference of the North Birmingham District assembled:

Finally, the bishop was halted in his work. There were forces in action against him that were relentless and acrimonious—forces that were determined to wreck, if possible, his life and future usefulness regardless of the methods to be used to accomplish that desiderata.

In the Index of July 18, 1912, appeared an article from W. D. Coar, a layman, at that time living in Birmingham, but had his membership in the boundary of the Central Alabama Conference. Coar among other things said:

Up to May, 1912, Bishop Stewart had just been on the episcopal bench two years. That he should be under the shadow of financial unfaithfulness was unfortunate both for him and the Church.

If the complaint against him had no foundation, he was, of all men, most unfortunate. If the complaint had foundation, his course was reprehensible, if not criminal. We will reserve for a future chapter our convictions as to his guilt or innocence. At this point it is only necessary to say that the critics of Bishop Stewart became so aggressive and restless that their actions ultimately led to an investigation of the unsavory, publicly rumored financial shortages of his treasurership of the education and mission moneys of the Alabama Conferences. An investigation having been provided for, and Bishop Jamison having accepted the responsibility to preside at the investigation, he duly and appropriately conducted the religious services at Thirgood Colored Methodist Episcopal Church, Birmingham, Ala., on October 9, 1912, at 10 A. M. R. M. McKenzie was elected Secretary.

Under an editorial, entitled, “The Investigation of Bishop G. W. Stewart,” which appeared in the Index of October 17, 1912, Dr. Cobb wrote the following as the result of that investigation:

And so the die was cast. What a tragedy! Just a little over two years after his election and consecration to the office, Bishop Stewart, by the men largely of his own State, by the men mostly who worked and voted for his election, with the man presiding by whose side he took the episcopal ordination vows, was suspended from his high office to await the judgment of the General Conference of May, 1914.

What a tragedy! The North Alabama Conference met in the fall of 1910, in Athens, and on November 15, 1911, in Birmingham, in Thirgood Church. If money entrusted to Bishop Stewart's keeping were short in these two years, why did not some of the leaders detect and report this shortage upon the adjournment of each Conference?

If not at the Conference, then, why were complaints not filed at the meetings of the Trustees of Miles Memorial College in May, 1911, and in May, 1912?

The complaint against the bishop alleged that as Treasurer of the college he had “misapplied the school funds for the years 1910, 1911, and 1912.”

W. M. Crain, a leader in the North Alabama Conference, wrote as follows of this Conference, which met in Birmingham, November 15, 1911, the article appearing in the Index of March 28, 1912:

In six or seven months after the publication of the above article, Dr. Crain is one of the Church's attorneys at the Stewart investigation and his subsequent suspension.

The author of this book was present at the Conference, visited the Joint Board of Finance with the Elders present and the bishop looking after all the money matters of the Conference, and heard no rumor of money shortage or disaffection among the leaders. What a tragedy!

The following letter of Bishop Stewart, which appeared in the Christian Index of November 21, 1912, giving a little outline of his work and what he had accomplished in the two years of his episcopal labors, not only expresses the deepest feelings of his soul, but it was enough to have softened the hearts of his most aggressive critics and influenced them to give him the benefit of every doubt:

How Bishop Stewart's case was finally disposed of will be told when we discuss the doings of the General Conference to which the bishop referred.

THERE were no vital movements of special significance throughout the Church during 1913. However, some prominent men and women of the Church and race were called from labor to reward. On January 4, Mrs. Lucy Ellis Tappan Phillips, wife of Bishop Phillips, after a lingering illness of three years, died in peace, in Nashville, Tenn.

This author can do no better thing at this juncture than reproduce the obituary written by Mrs. Lula Crosthwait, an instructor at Fisk University and a lifetime friend of Mrs. Phillips, and read at the funeral by Dr. S. W. Crosthwait, husband of Mrs. Crosthwait. Dr. R. T. Brown acted as master of ceremonies and J. H. Crooks, the pastor, participated. The sermon was preached by Bishop Lane. The obituary follows:

Solomon says, “Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing.” She was all the word wife implies. She was my inspiration, the sacred academy of my life. I need not say more. I could not say less.

Other deaths were: J. W. Davis, of Arkansas, a young man of great promise, on January 8; H. G. Armstead, for many years a leader of influence in Georgia, in Macon, on March 17; W. J. White, of Augusta, Ga., Editor of the Georgia Baptist and for many years the leading Baptist minister of the State, on April 17; J. K. Daniel, of Memphis, a leader in our Tennessee Methodism for more than a quarter of a century, on April 18; Bishop W. B. Derrick, of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, April 15; L. Peters, formerly of Alabama, at Boley, Oklahoma, May 13; and Maud Smith, wife of J. W. Smith, a pastor at Liberty Street Church, on July 24. And these all died in the faith.

The General Board met in Jackson, Tenn., May 7, 1913, which was one year after the upheaval at Macon, May, 1912, and just one year distant from the General Conference of May, 1914. It was Agent Martin's first report, and the last till the meeting of the General Conference. The total receipts were $46,068.39. Adding the moneys raised by Dr. Haygood, Missionary Secretary; Dr. J. W. McKinney, Secretary of Church Extension, and Dr. A. R. Calhoun, Epworth League Secretary, the total raised from May, 1912, to May, 1913, amounted to $50,411.22.

Considering the unsettled conditions prevailing throughout the Connection by reason of the changes of General Officers at Macon, the shortages of H. Bullock before he resigned, the investigation of the financial matters of Bishop Stewart, the reports were splendid and caused Editor Cobb to write in the Index of May 15, 1913:

Upon the adjournment of the General Board the leaders began to look toward the General Conference. The question of the election of additional bishops was discussed in the Church papers but not with the heat and rancor of former years.

THE Twelfth Quadrennial General Conference met in St. Louis, Mo., May 6, 1914, and closed on the twentieth of the month. During the session of the Conference the question as to whether this was the twelfth or thirteenth session was raised. It was explained that this was the “Twelfth Quadrennial of our organized existence but the Thirteenth General Conference, there having been a called session of the General Conference in Augusta, Ga., in the year of our Lord, 1873.” Bishops Holsey, Lane, Williams, Cottrell, and Phillips participated in the opening of the Conference, after which N. C. Cleaves was elected Secretary, and M. F. Brinson, G. S. Goodman, and William Bobo, Assistants. A Committee on Rules, consisting of J. A. Bray, J. M. Reed, C. L. Bonner, G. C. Parker, R. Bates, J. A. Lester, and G. F. Porter, were appointed.

Other preliminary steps in the organization were the fixing of the bar of the Conference, the appointing of S. J. Elliot as Marshal, the electing of R. C. Simmons Reporter for the daily papers, and arranging the Conference to meet at 9 A. M. and adjourn at 2 P. M.

Upon the suggestion of R. A. Carter, the General Conference proceeded to business under the rules of the preceding Conference till the rules were offered for the government of this body. Bishop Holsey presided during this, the opening day of the Conference, and Bishop Williams, who preached the introductory sermon from the eighth verse of the first chapter of Hebrews, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and forever,” from which he preached a thoughtful and spiritual sermon, then pronounced the benediction.

The message of the bishops, written and read by Bishop Williams, was delivered on the second day of the Conference. The message dealt with such subjects as “The Church,” “Our Institutions of Learning,” “The Epworth League,” “Sunday School Department,” “New Movements in the Church,” “The General Departments,” “Moving the Time-limit,” “Raising the General Funds,” “Our African Mission,” “Co-operation with the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,” and “The Election of More Bishops.” Respecting co-operation with the Church, South, the message observed that our Church had already co-operated with that Church in educational work and that now it appeared Providence had intervened to make it possible for us to co-operate with our Mother Church to establish a mission work in Africa, Bishop Lambuth, of that Church, and John W. Gilbert, of ours, having founded a mission in the heart of the Dark Continent. In another chapter I pointed out the fact that nothing has been done by the Church up to this time to do mission work to any appreciable degree in Africa. Concerning the election of additional bishops the message says:

The bishops recommended the enactment of a law by which the bishops in the future should be retired automatically at a certain age. If we had such a law, said the message, “it would save both the Conference and the bishops much embarrassment, and would inure to the best interests of the Church.”

The pronouncement on the “Time-limit” was very significant:

At this juncture I should say that the General Conference concurred in the recommendation of the bishops and enacted a law limiting the term of a presiding elder to six years. The following petition was offered to the General Conference by E. N. Smith and J. W. Smith through the Committee on Itineracy:

S. J. Elliot, O. T. Womack, R. W. Underwood, R. L. Baylis, G. W. Young, D. W. Featherston, R. B. Polk, Wm. Crain, J. B. Washington, J. S. Pinkard, and J. W. P. Leewood signed the majority report which recommended nonconcurrence with the petition. E. N. Smith, of Mississippi, and W. H. Parker, of the Southeast Missouri and Illinois Conference, submitted the minority report concurring with the time-limit of the presiding eldership.

The General Conference adopted the minority report and the six-year limit of presiding elders has been the law of the Church since 1914.

It is with considerable pride that I can say the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church was the first Methodist Church to extend the limit of the time of a presiding elder to six years and require him to do pastoral work before he is eligible for reappointment to that same office. It is interesting to observe that after the existence of this law for ten years in our Church the Methodist Episcopal Church, at its General Conference in Springfield, Mass., in May, 1924, passed a law formed very much after the model of ours.

Here is the law passed by that body:

I would not say that the Methodist Episcopal Church had our Church even in mind when its highest legislative body enacted the above law. But I do say, without hesitation, that the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church was the first to pass a law allowing a presiding elder six years and then remand him to the pastorate before he can preside again over a district.

It would seem that the law in the Methodist Episcopal Church permits a district superintendent to preside consecutively six years in the same Conference on the same district or six years consecutively on different districts. But after this time he must pastor six years before he can preside again. The principle is not unlike our law, which requires an ex-presiding elder to pastor two years before he can be reappointed to a district.

It is illuminating to observe that the Negro Church was ten years in advance of the white Church and very truly initiated rather than imitated our white brethren in forming a law that would “prevent the formation and continuance of a perpetual governing class within the ranks of the Annual Conference.” This law does not only minimize the control of presiding elders in the affairs of our Annual Conference but it divides this control among the leading pastors and, at the same time, gives other worthy ministers the opportunity to share whatever honors, influence, prestige, or emoluments that may inhere in the office of the presiding eldership.

The voluntary retirement of Bishop Lane was one of the outstanding incidents of the Conference. Elected to the episcopal office in March, 1873, he had rounded out forty-one years of faithful service to the Church in the highest position within its gift.

The remarks of the bishop before the General Conference were touching and interesting. Among other things he said:

The reader can imagine the effect of such an address, delivered by the silvery-haired prelate, who was very much loved by the Conference. The retirement of the bishop was effected on the fifteenth of May, 1914. In a former chapter reference was made to the trial of Bishop G. W. Stewart, which would take place in this Conference, for an alleged misapplication of Church funds on account of which charge had been suspended by an investigating committee.

The passage of this case through the General Conference had so many fluctuations, ebbs, and flows that a recital of its channel is worthy of observation.

On the seventh of May we had the first reference to the Stewart case, when Bishop Holsey informed the Conference that Bishop Stewart “desired his case brought before the Conference and be disposed of at the earliest time possible.” G. L. Word immediately moved that the Committee on Episcopacy take the case for consideration, but J. C. Martin thought the General Conference should act.

Bishop Holsey was of the conviction that the Episcopal Committee should outline some method of procedure. At this stage of the discussion “Bishop Phillips said he had given the matter much study and would now give the house the benefit of his investigation. He outlined the method of procedure for the trial of a bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church and in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. He said we should be guided by these methods.”

The motion made by G. L. Word failed of passage. But a substitute motion to hear the case before the entire General Conference prevailed. The time for hearing the case was fixed for ten o'clock, Friday, May 8.

On this day Bishop Lane was the presiding officer, but feeling very much indisposed, he requested Bishop Williams to take the chair.

The General Conference considering itself in executive session, Bishop Williams ordered all persons, except delegates and visiting ministers and laymen of the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church, to vacate the building.

H. C. Frederick, who had some connection with the case, read the charges and specifications which had not been turned over to the Secretary of the General Conference.

R. S. Stout, one of Bishop Stewart's attorneys, J. W. Wills being another, sought to non-plus the charges and specifications on the grounds that three ministers, who waited on Bishop Stewart and had been interested in the case, were now prosecutors.

Bishop Williams ruled that the objection was not founded on law and that the contention, therefore, could not be sustained. J. W. Wills then contended that the fifth restrictive rule would be violated by the trial of Bishop Stewart by the General Conference, as it destroyed his right and privilege of challenge.

The bishop ruled that the contention was not sustained, as the law he recited had reference to method and did not in any wise affect this case which the General Conference had determined to try, sitting as a committee of the whole, and which did not involve the fifth restrictive rule. “Bishop Phillips, speaking to this point, expressed the conviction that the General Conference was not in error but was proceeding along regular lines, in regular order. A section read by the bishop from the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, justified the grounds taken by him.” Continuing the case, it developed that the charges and specifications, together with the minutes of the investigation and the testimony of the witnesses, made up a typewritten manuscript of 176 pages. After one hour and thirty minutes had been consumed in the reading of the voluminous document the Conference, upon the motion of J. W. McKinney, took a recess of ten minutes.

But upon the expiration of this time adjournment was had till four o'clock in the afternoon. Immediately after the opening of the afternoon session J. W. Wills made a motion to quash the further proceeding of the documentary manuscript because it had just been signed by Bishop Jamison and that the charges and specifications were illegally drawn.

“William Crain, attorney for the Church, stated that it was strange that the attorneys for the defense did not see this point at the beginning of the trial and had permitted it to go on till now, before raising an objection. The stenographer was in every way competent and had made a faithful transcript from his own record of the proceedings of this investigation.”

It was Mr. Crain's purpose to show that, while Bishop Jamison may have delayed in signing the proceedings of the investigation, the validity of the document could not be questioned nor could the illegality of the charges and specifications be established. The contention of J. W. Wills being declared out of harmony with the nature and merits of the case, the presiding officer ordered a continuation of the reading of the document, which was completed at 9.45 P. M., when, upon the motion of L. H. Brown, the General Conference adjourned to May 9, having had the Stewart case under study for two days.

On the ninth of May, Bishop Lane was the presiding officer. From the opening of the Conference till noon, Bishop Stewart was reading his accounts, receipts, and vouchers. The attorneys for the Church requested a blackboard for tabulating the figures of Bishop Stewart. The granting of this request was followed by a motion by W. P. Greer, that the matter of tabulating the figures be referred to a special committee and the motion prevailed. Nothing resulted from the motion, as the committee was not appointed. Considerable time was consumed in the exchanging of views as to the manner of the procedure of the case. “Bishop Williams, on coming to the chair, said that he was convinced that the case could not proceed in open Conference, and that the matter should be referred to a special committee consisting of one lay delegate and one clerical delegate from each Annual Conference.” Following this suggestion, W. P. Greer, of the West Tennessee Conference, moved the appointing of such a committee.

The motion was discussed, pro and con, at great length. Finally, upon the motion of R. A. Carter, the previous question was voted and the motion made by W. P. Greer prevailed. The following committee was appointed:

The appointment of this committee removed the case from the General Conference, but it was an unusual proceeding. In fact, the Conference erred. Having considered the case two days, the Conference should not have referred to a committee a matter which, in the last analysis, it would have to determine. The case rested Sunday, May 10; Monday, May 11, to Tuesday, May 12. During these days of rest from the Stewart case matters appertaining to the Ecumenical Conference were discussed, resolutions on “Peace and Arbitration“ presented by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ were adopted, and the addresses of Dr. Charles S. Macfarland, General Secretary of the Federal Council; Dr. J. S. Jackson, fraternal representative of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, and Mr. Villiard, President of the National Association for the Protection of Colored People, proved helpful, stimulating, and a welcome divergence from the consideration of the Stewart trial.

The Conference resumed the trial on May 12, when R. S. Stout, Chairman of the Special Committee to which the trial was to be directed, submitted the following report, which was read by the Secretary of the committee, J. A. Stout:

This case was disposed of as follows, as the minutes of the General Conference of 1914 will attest:

THE General Conference had barely adjourned before war clouds hung portentous over a part of Europe, then spread, like the waves of the sea, until the world became involved in a bloody maelstrom.

Declaration of war was made by Austria against Serbia, July 28, 1914; Austria against Russia, August 6, 1914; then Austria against Montenegro, Japan, Belgium, August 9, 27, and 28 respectively.

France, restive and nervous, declared war against Austria, August 11, 1914; against Germany, August 3 of this year; and Germany against Belgium, August 4, 1914; against France, August 3, 1914, and against Russia, August 1, 1914.

Then came Great Britain with a war declaration against Germany, August 4, 1914; against Austria, August 13, and against Turkey, November 5. Japan declared war against Germany, August 23; Portugal against Germany, November 23; Serbia against Germany, August 9; Turkey against the Allies, November 23. These countries mentioned were the principal nations that made war declarations in 1914. A severance of diplomatic relations followed the war declaration of those and other countries during 1914, 1915, 1916, and 1917, at different periods, until well-nigh the whole world became involved. On the fourth of August, 1914, President Wilson issued a proclamation which proclaimed the neutrality of the United States in these words:

Josephus Daniels, Secretary of the Navy, 1913-1921, in his “Life of Woodrow Wilson” says:

The sinking of the Lusitania off Kinsale Head, Ireland, May 7, 1915, causing the loss of more than 1,200 lives, 114 of which were American citizens; the destruction of other ships; the disregard by Germany of all those high moral motives and principles which obtain in the solution of international problems, besides other contributing causes, made it impossible for the United States to maintain its position of neutrality without sacrificing its honor as a nation.

President Wilson in his message to Congress, April 2, 1917, made this formal declaration of the end of neutrality:

Quoting Secretary Daniels again, he says in his book:

And so the United States entered the war. The War and Navy Departments, having anticipated the attitude of the Government, had already begun preparations.

The action of Congress increased the momentum of all preparations and, in a short time an American Army of 4,272,521 saw service overseas in a manner that distinguished itself before all the nations of the earth.

From the day of the beginning of the landing of our Expeditionary Forces in France, June 26, 1917, to the close of the war and the signing of the Armistice, November 11, 1918, American troops displayed a valor and courage that brought victory to our arms and to the cause of the Allies.

The Negro, up to the beginning of the war, through all stages of preparation and during all the weary, bloody days of the conflict, evidenced a loyalty to, a devotion for, the welfare of his country that characterized his actions in every conflict in which this country had ever been engaged. He aided in the Red Cross movement, purchased thrift stamps and Liberty bonds, drilled in the cantonments, fought overseas, and returned home with a larger knowledge of his own potentiality as a soldier and with an awakened consciousness of the fact that the race of which he is a representative should not only fill a larger and higher place in the eyes of the nation, but should, at the same time, be accorded all the rights, privileges, and opportunities that are accorded other American citizens.

The Negro was affected by the World War just as other people were. It made an epochal change in his consciousness.

“It brought to him,” said the Southern Churchman, published in Richmond, Va., “a great awakening. He awoke to find himself able to do, and do well, a great many things he had not known he could do, and no one else had known he could do. He stands to himself to-day in an equivocal place between the old and the new.”

It is a matter of common knowledge that the war opened to the Negro unforeseen opportunities. It brought him into the draft and into the army and into the industrial life of the country. The scarcity of laborers at the North, who left the industrial plants for service overseas, opened, in a way, the door to economic equality with the white man. Large numbers of the race migrated to the North, during the war and continued for a time after its close, where better pay and better treatment were accorded him. It is estimated that the Negro contributed $225,000,000 to the Government for Liberty bonds, gave $2,000,00 for relief work, “was cited for bravery, and awarded the croix de guerre.”

He bore his full share in the struggle and naturally expected a larger freedom and better opportunities to perform and enjoy all the rights and privileges of an American citizen.

Disappointed, it became an easy matter to widen the relation between himself and the white man. Race riots occurred in Washington, D. C.; Chicago, Ill., and other cities. Then came the necessity for a better understanding between the leaders of both race's. Out of the conferences, held in various parts of the country, interracial commissions were formed, and these commissions did much to allay friction and promote concord and better cordial relations between the two races.

However, it must be understood that conferences and interracial commissions do not make a panacea for the frictions and disturbed relations of the races. These agencies, while mostly palliative, are, nevertheless, indispensably necessary and must be continued throughout the future. Considered as remedial factors for permanently solving racial disturbances, they will prove abortive and futile. The ills, distrusts, and wants of the Negro are too deep to be reached by mere methods of extenuation.

His ambitions and aspirations cannot be hushed by mere palliatives. Some way must be discovered to extend to him simple, elementary justice wherever it may be denied; to eliminate unnecessary and unwarranted discriminations; to confer upon him his rights as a man and citizen; to abolish lynchings, and permit him to travel over the railroads like other travelers. Rights and privileges like these are fundamental and will contribute to the permanent alleviation of friction and unrest wherever they exist, as well as promote cordial and abiding friendly relations between black and white Americans.

Out of the reconstruction of the Civil War came the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the Federal Constitution.

Nobody expects an amendment to the Constitution as an outgrowth of the World War that could in any way benefit the Negro. Redress for his wrongs and grievances is not to come through that kind of legislation.

But rather through educational processes; by training the young of both races to love and not hate each other; by recognizing the outstanding fact that the Negro will never rest contented till he is granted all the immunities enjoyed by other people.

In this connection, it is admissible to say that time must enter into the solution of all the problems in which the Negro is vitally concerned. Through the training of the young of both races, through educational processes generally, stimulated by a healthy public opinion favoring a square deal for all races, and by an enlightened public press and sympathetic pulpit, in the evolution of their years, the Negro is destined to come into a brighter day and larger freedom because God lives and shapes the destinies of angels and men.

The World War, the opportunities it brought to the Negro at home and overseas, so awakened him and brought to him such an outstanding consciousness of his value to the nation as a man and citizen that ever hereafter he will desire to see his Government living up to and practicing that part of the Declaration of Independence which pronounces this great truth: “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

It would be difficult to imagine the part which the Churches of America and the religious element in general contributed to the success of our arms and the arms of our Allies.

The various denominations furnished thousands of young men for the conflict; many Churches and colleges, as far as possible, kept a roll of their enlisted men and erected tablets on their walls to show the names and number of those who made the supreme sacrifice for their country. The Church not only contributed thousands to the Expeditionary Forces of this country, but it added intellectual and spiritual stimulus to these forces.

President Wilson, recognizing the Church of Jesus Christ as the center and source of all that is most spiritual, intellectual, and æsthetic in the life of millions of our people, and, further, believing in the Christianity of these people as well as in the effectiveness of prayer, designated Sunday, October 28, 1917, as a day of prayer for the success of the war. In the proclamation, among other things, the President said:

That Sabbath was observed. America was fighting a battle for Christianity, and the voice of the Christian world reached the gates of heaven and God, in his own way and time, gave victory to the Allies.

In the way of Chaplains, the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church contributed three to the army. They were: Revs. G. A. Thomas, of Georgia; J. W. Oveltrea, of Alabama, and G. C. Parker, of Kentucky. The first two rendered splendid service overseas and the last was no less faithful where he served the various posts in this country to which he, at different times, was assigned.

Before closing this chapter an opinion on the responsibility of the war might be pertinent. It is generally believed that this responsibility can be laid at the door of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and upon Russia.

THE continuance of the World War during the years 1915, 1916, and 1917, up to the signing of the Armistice, November 11, 1918, to which reference has already been made, did not prevent the assemblage of regular religious bodies which were scheduled to meet during these years.

A gathering of special importance met in Cincinnati, Ohio, June 30, 1915, at the Publishing House of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to consider questions of federation and co-operation and such other questions as might direct the attention of those in attendance to the ultimate unification of Negro Methodist bodies. The meeting was full of interest and, withal, profitable. While questions which related to organic union were approached with caution and without commitment, it was evidently certain that the meeting was called for the purpose to bring into closer relation the Churches represented—a relation that might, in the future, evolve into organic union.

The denominations represented were as follows: From the Colored Methodist Episcopal Church: Bishops C. H. Phillips, R. A. Carter, N. C. Cleaves; Revs. J. A. Bray, J. W. Gilbert, J. A. Hamlett elected a bishop since; and Professors D. C. Potts, W. A. Bell, From the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church: Bishops A. Walters, G. W. Clinton, J. S. Caldwell; Revs. J. S. Jackson, and Messrs. S. G. Atkins, J. C. Dancy, and W. M. Trent. From the Methodist Episcopal Church: Bishops T. B. Neely, W. P. Thirkield, T. S. Henderson; Rev. R. E. Jones, elected bishop since; J. P. Wragg, Dr. I. G. Penn, and L. J. Price. During the deliberations of the Churchmen, Bishops Henderson, Thirkield, Neely, Walters, Phillips, and Lee presided.

If nothing tangible was accomplished, the gathering at least indicated that there were thousands of Methodists who would like to see the various Methodist bodies united. A similar gathering, known as a “Working Conference on the Union of American Methodism,” was held in Harris Hall, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill., February 15, 16, and 17, 1916, under the John R. Lindgren Foundation of the University. It ought to be said here that the purpose “of the fund as fixed by the donor is for the Promotion of International Peace and Interdenominational Harmony.”

The expenses of the Conference were borne by the Lindgren Foundation.

President Abram W. Harris, of the University, and Chairman of the Committee of Direction, speaking of the Conference after the adjournment, said:

THE Thirteenth Quadrennial Session of the Fourteenth General Conference met in Chicago, Ill., May 2, 1918. Senior Bishop L. H. Holsey, the presiding officer for the day, assisted by Bishops Williams, Cottrell, Phillips, Carter, and Cleaves, conducted the opening exercises. After the delivery of the quadrennial sermon by Bishop E. Cottrell, the Conference was organized by the election of M. F. Brinson, G. S. Goodman, William Bobo, J. E. Raines, and W. P. Pipkins as Secretaries.

M. F. Brinson was the principal Secretary; the others were his assistants. The time for meeting and adjourning was fixed at ten A. M. and three P. M. The usual committees were formed and the work of the body was at once begun. The Conference was composed of 350 delegates, with twenty-six absent.

The message was written and read by Bishop Phillips. Concerning migration it said:

FROM May, 1918, to May, 1922, was a quadrennium full of vital interest and many varied and important happenings in the world, our own denomination as well as throughout Methodism generally. It has already been observed that the World War ended in 1918, and that the Armistice was signed on November 11 of this year. The industrial unrest, which had been considerably intensified during the war; the government control of big industries which had raised the question of making government and municipal ownership permanent; how to lay the foundation for the rehabilitation of the industrial, economic, educational businesses which had been greatly disturbed by the war were among the many problems that confronted the nation. While a solution has been found for many of our problems, the National Government will be engaged for years seeking adjustments for ugly social conditions and hostile relations that had their origin in the World War and its aftermaths.

The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, meeting in May, in Atlanta, Ga., elected to the College of Bishops Drs. John M. Moore, William F. McMurray, Urlan V. W. Darlington, Horace M. Dubose, William N. Ainsworth, and James Cannon, Jr. The General Conference continued the Commission on Unification and voted to raise several millions of dollars during the quadrennial for education, Church extension, missionary work, and for retired ministers. It voted, also, in connection with the Methodist Episcopal Church, which pledged itself to raise $80,000,000 to celebrate the centenary of the beginning of Methodist missions, and for that purpose asked the Connection for $35,000,000.

That Church faced the quadrennium prepared to enlarge its work and to adequately execute the tasks that confronted it as the result of the World War. In 1919, these two great Methodist Churches began celebrating the centenary of Methodist missions by taking large and small subscriptions from ministers and laymen, allowing them to run four or five years, paying a certain amount each year. The movement started four years earlier, when Dr. S. E. Taylor, at that time Executive Secretary of the Missionary Centenary of the Methodist Episcopal Church, began a survey of the religious, sanitary, and educational conditions of the world. In a word, the Centenary Movement was to advance the cause of home missions; to awaken the Church to a full appreciation of its relation to the industrial problems of the present day; to emphasize the possibility of fundamental changes in the social order so that the Church might begin a process of adaptation if it would hold its place as the most effective force in the world for good, and to push forward foreign-mission work along evangelistical, educational, and medical lines and “give 30,000,000 pagan black people the Gospel and thus protect them from the evils of advancing European civilization.”

The Colored Methodist Episcopal Church sought to raise $1,000,000 as a centenary offering for education and missions. While this amount was not raised in its completeness, it is safe to say that more money was raised for all purposes for the Church during this quadrennium than any four years in its history.

The celebration furnished an occasion for a revival in religion, education, in home and foreign missions, and in all the principles, doctrines, and spirit of Methodism generally. W. W. Pinson, D.D., a Missionary Secretary of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, composed a song, entitled, “The Battle-Hymn of the Centenary,” which was used as a rallying song throughout his Church.

This hymn is so expressive of the feelings and sentiments of Methodists wherever they may be found that it is given here in its entirety:

Besides the Centenary Movement there was another cause of connectional import that engaged the attention of the Church—a cause that grew out of the Centenary Movement and was both stimulated and benefitted by it. Reference is here made of the purchase of the Christian Science Church at Cleveland, Ohio, at a cash price of $50,000.

While this Church was located in the Kentucky and Ohio Conference and was presided over by Bishop Phillips, yet each bishop assisted in the initial payment, the money being contributed by the various Conferences of the Church. The harmony and co-operation were beautiful and effectual. The amounts contributed by the various episcopal districts follow:

The total amount contributed amounted to $26,500, leaving a balance of $23,500. Bishop Phillips procured this loan of $23,500 from the Fourth and First National Bank of Nashville, Tenn. The pastor, L. H. Brown, D.D., a man of remarkable skill and executive acumen, who looked after the details of the deal, and who led the congregation out of the old Church into its present surroundings, has since paid every dollar of indebtedness on the Church property and has just finished seven successful years in the pastorate of the finest Church building in the Connection. R. S. Stout, Church Extension Secretary, rendered splendid service to the pastor and officers in helping to arrange matters in connection with the purchase of the property.

This Church was formally opened to the public on the third and fourth Sabbaths in July, 1919. The preaching was done on the first Sabbath of the opening by Bishops Lane, Carter, and Cleaves; and on the second Sabbath by Bishop Phillips, at eleven A. M.; cornerstone laying by the Masons, at three P. M., at