an obstruction, or of having my future
prospects blasted. It is my privilege, therefore, to speak to you this
morning upon this subject calmly and dispassionately, having no motive
to either suppress or exaggerate the truth. The party who wrote Dr.
Buckley, threatening to remove him as an obstruction, must be highly
gratified to know that that obstruction has already been removed.
Brother Hughey removed the obstruction, extinguished the candle, and
destroyed the candlestick.

We are to approach this question this morning, to discuss it purely upon
its merits. The ground of constitutional law was traversed thoroughly
yesterday morning in the opening speech by Dr. Potts, a speech that,
though he did not hear it himself, was heard by this body, and will
be heard through the length and breadth of the Church everywhere. It
remains for us who follow him simply to turn on a few side-lights here
and there, or to give an opportunity of viewing this question from a
new point of view. And, first, there is a line of argument that may be
helpful to some that has already been presented in part touching the
administration of our law and the interpretation of terms that is
worthy, I think, of still further consideration.

Dr. Buckley said in the New York _Christian Advocate_ of March 15th,
1888:

"The question of eligibility turns, first, upon whether the persons
claiming seats are laymen; secondly, whether they have been members of
the Church for five years consecutively, and are at least twenty-five
years of age; and, thirdly, upon whether they have been duly elected. If
women are found to be eligible under the law, they would stand upon the
same plane with men, in this particular, that they must be twenty-five
years, etc."

Now, then, is a woman legally qualified to sit in the General Conference
as a lay delegate? Is she a layman in the sense of that word in the
Discipline? If she be not in, she cannot be introduced contrary to law
by a mere majority vote of the General Conference. The Doctor sometimes
writes more clearly than he speaks, and it was so in the occasion of
writing this article. Over against this we have one of (as Dr. Hamilton
would say) the "subtle insinuations" of the Episcopal Address, which
declares that no definition of "layman" settles the question of
eligibility as to any class of persons. For many are classed as
laymen for the purposes of lay representation, and have to do with it
officially as laymen, ye