Texas Christian Advocate (Dallas, Tex.), Vol. 48, No. 31, Ed. 1 Thursday, March 27, 1902 Page: 3 of 16
sixteen pages : ill. ; page 18 x 14 in. Scanned from physical pages.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
3
March 27, 1902.
e
4
3. No.
2.
3. No.
P. C.
(Continued on Page Seven.)
cannot help it.
Those who suf-
If
It
who suffers
from ill-health
casts a shadow
on her own hap-
piness and the
happiness of
N. G. Ozment, Detroit—1. I am not in a
position to answer this. 2. I would rather
answer this in the negative. 3. After con-
sideration and meditation, must say I do
not.
‘97
9
I would favor redistricting our territory. No.
2. I think not. 3. I would not object to re-
longer time for their pastors. It seems
to take them longer to get their work in
hand, and pastors of other Churches have
advantages of us, for they have no limit
of time.
James T. Hicks, Wellington—1. I am
not in favor of mutilating our Church
IC. C. Williams. Fate—1. I do not.
think not. 3. I do not.
B. T. Hayes, Ponder.—1. No.
not. 3. I do not.
B. H. Webster, Wheatland—1. No.
No. 3. No.
E. Hightower. Cisco.—1. No. I favor
giving the smaller conferences the relief
they think they need by dividing the
apportion Texas and giving it to the other two. 2. I
finances am in doubt. 3. No.
J. C. Carter, Proctor—1. I am not in
favor of redistricting our conferences in
Texas. 2. As the Deaconess’ work would
be mostly in the cities, and I a country
circuit preacher, I do not know the de-
mands of the cities enough to answer
that question intelligently. In the coun-
try and small towns the time has not
come. 3. I do not favor the elimination
of the time limit.
E. L. Egger, Madras—1. No. 2. Yes. 3.
No.
H. Bascom Owens, Indian Creek—1. Be-
ing a new transfer to this conference, I
am scarcely familiar with the territory
sufficiently to answer intelligently; yet
with the information I have at present,
I am opposed to redistricting. 2. I do not .
think it has. 3. Believing the Church is
served to the best advantage by the pres-
ent plan, I am opposed to the elimination
of the time limit.
G E. Holley, Sulphur Bluff—1. I do not.
2. I think not. 3. No.
moving the time limit for this reason, if G. F. Boyd, Ector—1. I do not. 2. I am
no more: Our large cities are wanting rather in favor of it. 3. No, no, no!
good to the greatest number. 2. Yes.
There is an urgent demand in all our
cities for it. Now, then, our good women
want it. Bet them have it. 3. No, sir.
Go back to two years.
R. E. Porter, Bagwell.—1. I do not. 2. I
think not. 3. I do not.
2. No, nor ever will. 3. No. Reduce it to
two years.
Frank M. Jackson, Winters.—.1. I do
not. 2. It has not. 3. I do not.
N. M. McLaughlin, Morgan—1. I am
in favor of redistricting. 2. I do not
think that the time has come for Dea-
conesses in our Church. 3. I do not favor
the removal of the time limit.
E. V. Cox, Breckenridge.—1. No. 2. No.
3. No.
C. A. Evans, Groesbeck.—1. I do not.
Let the Northwest Texas alone and let
the East Texas Conference and West
Texas absorb the Texas. 2. I believe it
has. 3. I do most heartily. I think we
had its necessity brought out clearly in
the case of Dr. Mathews in St. Louis. Do
not let our Church have to whip around
a law, but make the law sufficient.
C. E. Gallagher, Rodgers—1. No. 2. No.
3. No—a thousands times no. I would
prefer that you do not agitate the sub-
ject of “Division” by publishing any-
thing whatever on it. Take due notice
and govern yourselves accordingly.
W. R. Thornton, Seymour.—1. I do not
favor it. 2. I think the time has fully
come. 3. I do favor the elimination of
time limit.
Moreland, Commerce—1. No. 2.
The woman
N. W. Keith, Uvalde—1. Yes. 2. No.
3. No.
2. I think history; so I heartily say no. 2. I am
T. S. Armstrong, Colorado—1. Yes! 2.
No! 3. No!
L. H. Brown, Attorney, San Marcos.—
1. Yes. The varying ratio of increase of
population in different localities of late
years in Texas has brought about too
great inequality in the strength of the dif-
ferent conferences, and I think redistrict-
ing highly proper. 2. No. We have no
pressing need for them, having, no great
cities with their teeming poor, and our
finances, too, would not justify our tak-
ing the step at this time. 3. Yes. What-
ever necessity may have existed for this
limit in the past, I believe the time has
come when better results will be obtained
by leaving this matter entirely to the
Bishops and his cabinet.
in the five Texas conferences. 2. I don’t
think we stand in need of the order of
Deaconesses in our economy. 3. I am a
hearty subscriber to the time limit as we
have it.
TEXAS CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE.
der would insure us. The city problem is
the problem of the future. The Deacon-
ate will help us to solve it. It will be a
Jesse G. Forester, Crandall—1. No. 2.
No. 3. No.
4 P P smile and sing.
I11-health in woman is generally trace-
able to disease of the delicate womanly
organism. Many women have been re-
stored to happiness by the use of Dr.
Pierce’s Favorite Prescription. It estab-
lishes regularity, dries weakening drains,
heals inflammation and ulceration and
cures female weakness. It makes weak
women strong, sick women well.
"I feel it my duty to inform you that I had
been a sufferer for many years from nervous-
ness with all its symptoms and complications.”
writes Mrs. O. N. Fisher, of 1861 Lexington Ave.,
New York, N. Y. "I was constantly going to
see a physician or purchasing medicine for this
or that complaint as my troubles became un-
bearable. In the spring of 1897 my husband
induced me to try Dr. Pierce’s-Favorite Pre-
scription. After taking one bottle and follow-
ing your advice I was so encouraged that I took
five more bottles of ‘ Favorite Prescription ’ and
then I did not take any more for several weeks
as I felt so much better, but still I was not com-
pletely cured. I commenced taking it again and
felt that I was improving faster than at first. I
am not now cross and irritable, and I have a
good color in my face: have also gained about
ten pounds in weight and one thousand of com-
fort, for I am a new woman once more.”
The dealer who offers a substitute for
t Favorite Prescription ” does so to gain
the little more profit paid on the sale of
less meritorious medicines. His profit is
your loss, therefore accept no substitute.
Dr. Pierce’s Common Sense Medical
Adviser is sent free on receipt of stamps
to pay expense of mailing only. - Send 21
one-cent stamps for the paper-covered
book, or 31 stamps for the cloth bound.
Address Dr. R. V. Pierce, Buffalo, N. Y.
have the same interest in any part of the j H Stewart, Vernon—1. If any great
State., The conditions in.Texassineyery- changes are made I think redistricting
thing have changed verymueh since these the best. 2. I doubt it. 3. Decidedly no.
lines were made. And, then, all the ____
Joe F. Webb, Beeville—1. Yes. 2. I don't
see that we need them down here, but if
the Bishops and Mission Board say from
their view-point that we need them let us
have them. We would like to know to
what body will they be amenable for their
character and official conduct. Will they
be members of the quarterly or other con-
ferences? If so, it seems this is not the
first question to decide. 3. No.
O. P. Kiker, Lampasas—1. Yes. As a
member of the Northwest Texas Confer-
ence I like a big conference. “There are
others.” Railroads, industry and increase
of population make it necessary. Five
conferences of equal size would be better
than five with no equality—in all things.
2. Yes. We need them in missionary and
charitable and hospital work. “There was
a disciple named Dorcas.” 3. Yes, if con-
ditions are such that a man should stay
Jno. -E. Roach,. Campbell—1. I favor
such a distribution of our territory as
will be most for the glory of God and the
success of our Methodism—not in one con-
ference, but in every conference and
throughout the world. 2. I can not an-
S. W. Miller, Allen.—1. I had rather
North Texas remain as it now is, but if
best for Methodism in Texas I am in fa-
vor of the best that can be done for the
five conferences. 2. No, not in my judg-
ment now, nor never. 3. Neither now, nor
as long as we are Episcopal Methodists.
When we abolish the time limit, then let
us give up the Episcopacy and become
congregational.
State could be better served by this
change now. I believe in the greatest
fer cannot
L. A. Burk, Celina—l. Yes. 2. No.
No.
at a place four years—all good, let him
stay four years. Suppose the condition
has not changed. 4. Yes. I am in favor
of a large and modern hospital at some
central city in the State where we can
get first-class service, as is being given
by the Catholic Church.
S. W. Turner, Hewitt—1. No. 2. Yes.
3. No.
others. She
swer intelligently, but I am opposed to -----
the establishment of any order or office J. D. Hudgins, Weston—1. No. 2. No. Harrison Bokchlta I T -1 No
where women will be brought to exercise 3. No. No 3 Ye^ to ’ two or three years at
authority over men in the Church of God. ----- .1. 2. No. 3. -es, to or unree -ears a
3. No. J. P. Rodgers, Bonita—1. Yes; anything most.
_____ that will better adjust our forces in the __
R. G. Mood Henrietta—1. Yes. 2. No. State. 2. No. 3. No; would prefer two J. P. Hamilton Farmer, Merit. 1. No,
3. No, emphatically years’ limit instead of four. as few towns could entertain conference.
A. H. Hussey, Lamasco.-I. Yes. We T. M. Kirk, Cumby—1. I do not. 2. No. J- P. Young, Fort Worth—1. No.
should seek the welfare of one conference We do not need them. . 3. I do not. We No: 3. No.
1. Z. T. Morris, Fort Worth—1. Yes.
We are a connectional Church and all
with Bishop Keener. We have a noble
company of Deaconesses, to wit, the
preachers’ wives. Let them have the title
without the order. 3. No. It would be
more embarrassing than ever to us that
only stay one year.
Sam’l Weaver, Reinhardt—1. I believe R. B.
no complete failure may be made in case
of crop failure, and would cause confu-
sion. 2. I hardly think the Church ready
to take the step. It is true that the ap-
peal in the latest issue of the Advocate
has some seeming good grounds, but the
Wvatt Annona —1. Yes. 2. No. The present time limit is sufficient for all Church as a whole has not had time to
J ’ true Methodists. investigate the matter. 3. No. I attn-
____ '__ bute the grand success of the Church to
Archer Denison—1. Yes; if not J. E. Vinson, Paris—1. I think it ad- its time limitation system God deliver
great affliction if the General Conference now, at some future time. It should be visable.. 2. With the limited knowledge of us from the timerorn.Pulpitncausedsy
does not give us this order. 3. I do. It done by a judicious, impartial committee, the duties of this office. I doubt the wis- continued pastorate because t e pe J
will not affect over five or ten per cent 2. The time has come. We need them, and dom of its creation 3 By no means, for, feelins,,ofemembershiP seen1tno1 much in
of our Churches. They should be given can not properly accomplish our work should the time limit be removed we want a change. Be seen too muc
the favor since others are not affected, without them. 3. I do not at the present might as well dispense with the office of other Churches.
---- time. I think we had better hold on and presiding elder, turn congregational, ptnnW, are doing very
C H Govette, Sherman—1. Do not think abide by our present itinerant system. preach trial sermons and call the pastor. .L Mills, Putnam. tWearedensnyery
if wmM hP bMt 2 Think many of our Our itinerant system has been potent in well as we are, and to all ot the above
noble women worthy of the ofmice of dea- . Chas. E. Lamb, Dallas—1. Yes. I think the evangelization of the world. questions; I answer no.
monlec an this distinction would be a it best for the general interests of the ---- . cc. ci. „ ,__ 1 N. 9 NI.
means’of grace to them 3 Think it time Church. 2. The order could be made a W. F. Cummins, Dallas.—1. No. 2. No. ,G. S. Hardy, Clarendon. 1. No. 2. No.
to abolish the time limit from our itiner- blessing. I would not oppose its adop- 3. No. _____ 3. No. _____
ant system. It would be a.blessins,to ton: 3 Mo, d0 not w M Leatherwood Rockwall.-I. No, W. P. Garvin, Kerens—1. No. 2. No.
manyofour.preachers and aure ' w. T. Morrow, Mt. Vernon.—1. I do not unless much benefit result to the mission 3. No.
a h u ‘ believe it wall be for best at present. It work. 2. Am not sufficiently posted to . —
c w conviile sumner_ 1 Yes 2 The may be wise to do so at some future say. Their support is a matter for con- R. H. Heizer, Wortham—1. I do, if they
C.W-Ganvi whprumn shouldI haveDea- time. 2. I do think it has, but am not in sideration. 3. No. I prefer the present can be so divided that each conference
timehas r e." hen onnortiinitv in home a position to speak advisedly. 3. I cer- plan. I think removal of timelimit would will have equal territory. 2. I do not
conesses or lose our opportunity in home ^.p do not. inspire a “time-serving” ministry. Again, think that the time has come for Dea-
mission work :‘ ----- it would work a hardship on men less conesses. 3. I do not.
A. F. Hendrix. Pilot Point.—1. I do not O P Thomas Terrell.-1 I do. 2. I think known but equally_capable. I do. 2. It
favor redistricting the territory included not. 3. I do not. _____ J. M. Binkley, Sherman-1. No. It will will strengthen our Church economy. 3.
cause too many changes in conference re- I do. This would give us all that is good
lations. 2. Yes. 3. No. It will be vir- in both the “settled pastorate” and. itin-
tually breaking up the itinerancy. erant systems. Three-fourths of our
2 j ____ preachers are changed now’ before the
J. F. Alderson, Wolfe City—1. I know’ four years limit is out. So, it would not
no good and sufficient reason for redis- effect the early exchange of unsatisfac-
3. tricting the State. 2. I think not. 3. Em- tory pastors, and it would give better
phatically yes advantages to the few who are satlsfac-
____ tory. We are running over this law any
2. F. H. Welch, Layman, Anna.—1. Yes. way.
, i -p , noon nn . S L. Ball, Leonard.—1. I do. Not for W. E. Kirby, Copeville.—1. I have not 2. No. Believe it out of place for our g tfSUT ARn BDARA
on , eyery h and,and it Government and my benefit, nor for benefit of the North been here long enough to answer intelli- Southern Methodism. 3. No; by no means. LlVin t AlEE H---h»
count.of.her SYst been her stronghold. Texas Conference, but that all the con- gently. 2. I don’t think so. 3. No. 1 con- -—- Day and night, sunshine and shadow
oammei. w ELE
, ognized by the public as appointed work- ---- cially or otherwise. 3. No. “The laborer
R. M. Leaton, Brownwood.—1. No. 1 a ers. The order of Deaconesses, I suppose, j B Sims Rhome—1. I do not. 2. Am is worthy of his hire.” The congrega-
not in favor of tearing up, nor,destrox. will meet the demands of the case. 3. I not especially opposed to it. 3. I do not, tion or Church should keep the preacher
ing anything that is good. 2. No. 1 nope am not much concerned as to the removal positively as long as he keeps the congregation. I
it has not. The good women already have of the time limit, knowing that most of ’ ---- mean this along every line,
their hands full of work for God. J . us will not likely ever need it; but inas- j. B. Gober, Van Alstyne.—1. Yes. I be- —
I prefer for it to remain as it Son. much as there is a case now and then, Heve the North Texas Conference ought J- A. Kerr, Joy.—1 Yes, I do. 2. Big
good plan to let well enougn aione. here and there, where it might be better to have a part of the mission territory no. 3. Thrice no. Glad you have raised
, , .. 1 ves, 9 yes for a pastor to remain with his congrega- lying due west of us in Northwest Texas these three important questions in the
J. E. Buck, Pleasanton. 1. • • > tion more than four years, I am willing Conference. 2. No. 3. I do not. Church’s interest.
provided this does not entitle them to to see the time limit removed. The power ----- . .
seats as members in our con . . to move us should not be destroyed. J. C. Moore, Edhube.—1. Yes; redistrict J- K. McMillan, Tioga.—1. I do not. It
No—thrice no. ------ or absorb Texas Conference. 2. I think is good enough for me. 2. No. 3. No. The
T C. M. Harless, Bonham.—1. I do not, not. 3. No; by no means, time is too long now.
B. H. Passmore, Goliad. —1. I do. 2. 1 though some changes in boundaries ought ---— ----
think not. 3. I do not. to be made. 2. No. It would tend to de- C. C. Davis, Iowa Park.—1. With my C. W. Jacobs, Gordonville.—1. I am not
---- . o tt stroy the feeling of responsibility to serve present limited knowledge of the several prepared to say. 2. No. God bless the
B. Harris, San Marcos.—1. I do. 2 Have in women not of the order, and instead conferences, I do not. 2. I think not. women as wives, mothers and sisters,
not matured an opinion. 3. An extension of getting more work, we would get less. 3. No. They are doing a great, good work as it
of time limit. Our machinery is by far too great now. ---- is-. 3. No. Two years would be best, I
“ . n, . It needs reduction. Or else we need a J. B. Parr, Gibtown.—1. I do, provided think.
Wallace R. Evans Ozona.—1 there is great deal more kinetic energy. 3. No, it will add convenient territory topresid-
no doubt in my mind but what the tern- But let a man be appointed for two years ing elder and give full Saturday and Sun- M. H. Read, Holliday.—1. No. 2. No.
tory included in the five Texas Confer- instead of one. All our county and day to each Quarterly Conference. 2. I do 3. No.
ences should be redistricted. 2. There has state officers are elected for two years, not, except she can become the “husband ——
never been a time but what the city "In this the children of this world are of one wife." Otherwise, it is not scrip- J- R. Boy, Alvord.—1. I do. 2. No.
Churches have needed Deaconesses. ’'. The wiser,” etc. Then extend the time limit to tural. 3. I do not, from the fact there are 3. No.
time has not yet come when Southern eight years. few pastors who do as effective work the •
Methodism can abandon the time limit. ---- fourth year as in previous years, and I NARTLWES--EYAS CANEERENCE
. , . W. B. Bayless, Honey Grove.—1. No. 2. fear this would result in placing the ap- NOKTHWEbT TEXAS GONFEHENGE
.D.A.Gregg,MasonlYesvTLiSisn No. 3. No, no, no! pointments in the people instead of the s A Barnes, Fort Worth.-l. I do not.
the property and territory or Metnodism, Cabinet, and friction and division would 2 T think it 'has 2 T do not
and would remain so, but be much more s D. Cook, Bryson.—1. No. Let the occur with our people, as it does with f - -niK 11 nas____ ao no:
convenient if redistricted. 2. No. The Northwest divide. The others are all those who call their pastors. The present Ren Hardv Childress —I T do not 2
way is wide open to our ladies to assist right as they are. 2. Yes. Our noble system is good. Yes I think so 3 I do not
their pastors in Christian work. An addi- women have done much for our Church. ---- -es, - think so. a. I do not.
tion of orders without an addition of la- Enlarge their field, if possible. 3. No. Our Atticus Webb, Sanger.—1. Yes; because R F n Cresson _i t am in favor
bor is useless. Christ used and acknowl- four-year limit has been a success. We I believe that it would be best for the f redistrtnng the territorv of our five
edged the labor of women in the Church, want no new system as long as this works Church, and believe that conference feel- conferences 8 I think so 3 No T do
but called none of them as disciples or well. ings should yield to that. 3. No; but conrerences - - think so. 3. No, I do
apostles. 3. No. It opens a new alley ---- rather that we go back to two-year terms. ‘ ____
way for lobbyists to work through. It is M. L. Hamilton, Dallas.—1. The ques- While long terms favor the preachers in w H Moss Bardwell —1 yes ? No
the beginning of a non-movable pastorate, tion demands consideration by the Gen- convenience and in saving money, I be- 3 W ’ ’
It smacks of Baptist economy and sel- eral Conference. 2. No, nor will not until Heve that short terms would give the ' ’ ____
fishness. men learn “to be discreet, chaste, keepers Church greater power and progress. I T A.. wn; 1 t .. .
at home, good, obedient to their own believe that all things should be sacrificed aittwen,-esdimonia--,tavoraret
wives,” etc. 3. No, nor never will until for this. Then, we see clearly that the districting of the territory. 2. I do not
it becomes necessary to impair the unity time limit and death are the only things think.th etime has come forthesintrodu ,
of Methodism and to detract from its that will move some preachers, whether t on.ol Deaconesses into our Church. 3.
evangelical power._____ acceptable or not, the time iinitavor ° elimination of
♦ - as much as another. We should not be are meeting with success under the pres- ~
amonnnuspthefhh pane - ® 2 * -m-- •
ing. the two larger do not. The reason is much as of another. 2. I think not. 3. I think it is just. 2. No. 3. No. pie, _1 a c. —. .. ,,
Datrntthzmevsndsnuponathe poser ana do not. ---- I. T. Stafford. E~My best judgment No. 3. No. ’ • ' ' 2 temVouCareten, Grghemcon IedoheMalse
tainimitatipns,yesnaYas Lettnelaw NA. T Pryden, Trustee, Gage.-1. No. 2. would approve 1 — w. 8. P. MeCullough, Granite, O. T. 1.1 2a2453011°n8
anv time or stay as long as necessity de- 3: mo _____ J. w. Blackburn, Blue Ridge.-l. I think do. No conference can attain its highest c., but not of P. E. Sometimes we boys
mods 7 S y AD Scott L E Gage -I answer no the boundary line of the North Texas efficiency unless it seeks the highest ef- get tired toting the good brother.
---- toalihreetquestions, ana mostnemphati- Conference should not be disturbed In ficiency, of antheatherrconference. 2-
T th' A. Stuckey, Sulphur Springs.—1. Yes cally to No. _____ snetrent w2i everhome.' 3. If wer could Only in a few ways does it benefit us. In
selfish. 2 I hope we wffl never have thl ritory, and others are too large. 2. No. As the law now stands, I should vote no. it. _____
orderanfDearonesesinpur Tl^pehhe nurmmnatsarerirtmy Dmatonesst creat°e P. G. Huffman, Paris.-l. I doubt not J. M. McCarter Benjamin-1. I do not.
time limit will always be just as it is. differences amounting to hatred among but.thatitwouldbet orethesnestrin terest ' ' '
Let good enough alone. our preachers. ____ on tseverare considerations, n. Fhereare J. B. Wood, Higgins.-l. I do not. 2. It
S A Ashburn Bowie-1 No 2 Not G. W. Day, Princeton—1. Yes. I think perhaps a few isolated cases where a has. 3. Yes. ____
vebt YeJ oy a“estiontraw itTbuBusteeato hsoweakmenterene mnsibiztasuchanaseyrr’ankrardgtnocdh W. B. McKeown, stratford-1.Yes:Tt
law or Methodism until 181n The Bishop tended to six or even eight years, but not there should be provision made lor such seqmetotoe, theennrsWay and
should be untrammeled in making the ap- eliminated—never while we retain Meth- w . ____ to the Dest interests of Texas Methodism. ....... - •---
pointments. odist PO ty. ____ J H Moreland, Dexter—1. Don’t know. 2. Another four years would decide bet- S. P. Nevill, Birdston.—1. I do not favor
cc .c1. -n---. 1 v , Frank A Rosser McKinnev—1 If it is 2. No. 3. No. ter; however, I yield to wishes of the W. a redistricting of said territory. 2. I am
S Crutchfield Paradise—I. Yes. 2. No. Frank A^Rosser Mc innrYer • ----- H. M. Society. 3. No, never. It will de- not prepared to say. 3. Most assuredly I
3. No-not at all. inpeerratomfernccesar do Otherwise I do E. R. Edwards, Decatur.-I. Some re- stroy the efficiency of our itinerant sys- do.
R J Smith St Jo -1 By no means not. 2. I think not. 3. i do not favor the adjustments are apparently needed. I tern. —
9 F,-.mitn, 30 •+ BYenoem 1: elimination of time limit should suggest that the Texas Conference - _ . -— . W. M. Lane, Grandview—1. No, if it af-
2.No,, no. .3.1 think it best for the 6_____ ■ be absorbed, using the Brazos as line be- J- O. Gore, Palo Pinto.—1. No. I think fects our conference. 2. No. 3. Yes.
Church and the pastor that we do not vaxolac cua 1 NTet nne tween the East and the West Texas Con- that, as one who expects to serve North- ----
change our time limit. There is more or • • d, • • ferences. Let North and Northwest re- west Texas Conference for life, it j p Odom, Italy—1. Yes. 2. No. 3. I
less, sameness in our preaching, and a ed 2. No. 3. No. _____ main as at present. 2.1 think not. 3. (N. W. T. C.) is in the best possible do.
ahanange preaaungnsebe sts Frestere Pthe D. F. Fuller, Kemp-1. Yes. The inter- Emphatically, no. shape-its territory being so adjusted that ----
preacher ests of the Church demand it. 2. Yes. ,2 .1. r .
P ____ Large centers of population suffer for W. P. Williams, Attorney, Terrell—1.
L. S Barton Dallas-1 Yes- not that their service. 3. Yes. Why establish a Yes Our districts should be more equi-
we as a conference will be helped but limit where neither prophet, apostle nor tably arranged in numbers, wealth and
that we may help some one elseP 2.’Cer- Christ has hinted such a thing? - territory. 2. No Southern Methodism
tainly. Our Church is greatly suffering ----- does not want such an innovation. 3. No.
for the need of the work that this or- J- A.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Rankin, George C. Texas Christian Advocate (Dallas, Tex.), Vol. 48, No. 31, Ed. 1 Thursday, March 27, 1902, newspaper, March 27, 1902; Dallas, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1594126/m1/3/: accessed June 3, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas State Library and Archives Commission.