Document: “Thirteenth Meeting,” The General Conference Bulletin 7, no. 7 (May 23, 1913): 108-111. HTML, PDF.
Contents: Discussion concerning divisions and why they were needed, during the 38th General Conference Session.
Text highlighted in yellow was quoted by C. C. Crisler in Organization, pp. 182-184. Text highlighted in cyan is A. G. Daniells’ reminiscing about how O. A. Olsen and W. C. White “put their heads together and fixed up a union conference organization” in 1894.
Thirteenth Meeting
May 22, 10 A. M.
W. T. Knox in the chair.
J. T. Boettcher offered prayer.
The secretary read the report of the committee on plans regarding the European Memorial, found on page 91 of the Bulletin.
W. T. Knox: Is there any discussion on this? I believe Brother Daniells wishes to say something.
A. G. Daniells: I have been requested to make a general statement on the plan of organization and the reasons for it. I shall try to be very brief in making such a statement, and outlining the reasons for this recommendation before us.
This suggestion is made for the purpose of giving efficiency to our endeavors in carrying on our work throughout the world. There was a time when each local conference was directly connected with the General Conference; and we may even go back of that, to a center with its remote parts. Before we had any organization at all, we had a center of administrative and properly constituted authority, with the units scattered about over the field. That center rested in the leaders. Elder James White, Elder Joseph Bates, and a few of their associates, before ever a conference was organized, before a constitution was framed, and an association was made, were administrators of this work and movement. They had a word to speak, they had counsel to give, they had commands, so to speak, to issue, and decrees to send forth. God was leading out a people, and the brethren and sisters scattered about over the territory recognized this leadership, and paid heed to the counsels given. But after a while it was seen that this administration needed to be defined, these leaders to be chosen by the people, and this authority needed to be recognized in a proper way, and the limitations set. So they framed a local conference for the remoter parts, and a General Conference for the center. For many years the General Conference received its delegation from the local conferences, and the local conferences themselves dealt directly with all the affairs relating to general interests.
Well, the work moved on; the people increased; new fields were entered, and new divisions sprung up, until away out in Australia, across the Pacific Ocean, nearly ten thousand miles from the central headquarters, a people were raised up, and conferences were organized; and there we came to feel as never before the need of something more in the way of organization to expedite our work. Perhaps I might tell you what we experienced, for I was out there. We had our conferences—one in New Zealand, one in Victoria, one in New South Wales, mission fields in Queensland, South and West Australia, and in Fiji, and all about there. Well, we had no authority out there outside of each local conference, and it was our understanding that all matters outside of the conference questions must be referred to headquarters. We were loyal, and we referred our questions, our needs, to them. We could not always control the character of the question raised, nor limit the time when it needed attention. But we would send the question on. It took about four weeks to get to the headquarters, and four weeks for an answer to get back. And, possibly, while we were writing in, the secretary and members of the committee were out holding camp-meetings in remote parts, and the question could not receive attention when it got there. I remember that we have waited three or four months before we could get any reply to our questions.
Sometimes after two or three months we received a note or five or six lines from the secretary, saying our matter had come, but the conference brethren were scattered, and when they got together in the fall, they would take the matter up. Well, if it were the case of hanging, the answer would be too late, and in many cases it was as important as that. We found continually that our work was hindered. Sometimes when the committee got together, they could not quite see through our questions, and wrote us for more light. After six or nine months, perhaps, we would get the matter settled. This was impeding the progress of the work; it was hampering us. So when Elder Olsen, president of the General Conference, was out to see us in 1894, he and Elder W. C. White put their heads together and fixed up a union conference organization. This was effected. That was for the purpose of bringing all those questions together and dealing authoritatively, administratively, with South Pacific Ocean questions, Australasian problems, so that any conference might get this word from a center of authority right there.
Now, I know some of our brethren thought then that the work was going to be wrecked, that we were going to tear the organization all to pieces, and get up secession out there in the South Sea islands. But we did not get up any secession; we did not raise any rebellion; and our brethren have found that out there in the Australasian field where this new division was created, the people have been as loyal to this denomination, and as loyal to this organization, too, as anybody in the wide world. No one in the United States has been truer to this organized movement than the Australasian brethren.
We worked away at this for seven years, and then the brethren came to see the advantages of it. In 1901 the General Conference recognized or recommended the organization of union conferences throughout the world. Today we have twenty-five of these, whereas we had but one or two twelve years ago. Now it has been demonstrated that this organization thrown in between the local conferences and the General, has proved a great advantage in our administrative work. Well, time has passed on. Twelve years have gone by, since the union conference came to stay with us and be a part of our organized work, and nineteen years since the first union was formed.
Now we come before this delegation with a recommendation for the putting in of another important piece in this great machine that is built up, (And I use the word machine in a proper way, and a sacred way, because it is a great facility in the hands of the Lord for carrying on the world-wide movement.) This is what is proposed: we find that our brethren in Europe have been doing and growing and developing, as you have seen from the reports which have been brought to you. Now over the sea, across the Atlantic, we have a constituency of thirty thousand people, and these people are in all these countries [pointing to the map]. Here is the United Kingdom; here are the countries of Scandinavia; here are the different parts of Germany, and the Latin countries, with France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Here are the more eastern countries, the Balkan States, and this great empire of Russia, and Asiatic Turkey, and the northern part of Africa and Egypt. In all these lands this message is planted to stay, and there are earnest, active, consecrated believers all through these countries to the number of thirty thousand.
Now, we find that we have separate unions there. They are union conferences, units, it is true, but they have become so large, the problems have become so great in conference administration, the institutions have become so numerous, and they overlap and intermingle so closely, that they feel the need of some kind of binding, uniting, authoritative organization that will enable the people in all this overlapping situation, with these big problems, to act together in administrative work, and to act together in the support of their institutions. I will relate an instance to show the need of some sort of organization like this. Twelve years ago Norway was hit hard by a financial crisis, and our printing house at Christiania was greatly hurt and imperiled, and you know we were obliged in this country to come forward and [p. 109] save the institution. We raised sixty-six thousand dollars to pay the people in Christiania what was due them. We were all glad when the last dollar was paid, and those mercantile and banking interests were satisfied. But, brethren, when that was done, there was still a great debt on that institution, amounting to—
L. R. Conradi: The mortgages on it were something like forty thousand dollars.
A. G. Daniells: Yes, the mortgages on it were very heavy; but we did not feel here that we could go further than to pay the creditors in the city. The brethren there had to meet other creditors of our own people.
I will tell you what our brethren in Germany did. Without any union there, with its great publishing interests, and various separate conference interests, and demands, they freely advanced to Scandinavia large sums of money to save their institution. All these ten years and more, our German brethren have been standing behind that institution. But they did it voluntarily. There was no European board to work the problem out.
Now, brethren, I personally believe that the great extent to which this work has developed in Europe, and the great interests, both evangelical and institutional, demand a board of administration, a European Division Conference, that will enable the brethren from all those states and kingdoms to have representatives and work together to aid one another in meeting crises and in carrying forward the work committed to them.
I cannot see that this step is in any way striking against the organization of this denomination. It does not touch the welfare of our organization a particle more than the organization of a union conference did. It is of the same kind precisely. For instance, over here we had the separate conferences that were directly connected with the General Conference, and we rounded them up into unions. Now we take those unions and round them up into a divisional conference. We take the constitution of the General Conference, as you will see when it is read here this morning, and, with the verbal changes necessary to define territories, we recognize the European Division Conference. We have taken the constitution of the General Conference and inserted a word or two here and there to make it apply to a division conference, as well as to a union conference. Before the unions, the General Conference constitution recognized only local conferences as members. When we organized the unions, they inserted another section, recognizing the union. Now we propose to insert a section, or a line, that will recognize the European Division Conference.
I have taken more time than I intended, but not more than I should like to take in speaking on this question, for it is more than a defense of a proposal. It is reviewing a grand and glorious work that has been developed in that great continent across the sea. The brethren thought I ought to make a general statement.
Not in the slightest degree does this militate against the General Conference. It simply recognizes a division conference as a member of the General Conference. And the division conference sustains the same organic relationship, defined by constitution, as the union conference. So when this Division is organized, the General Conference will go right on with its train of organization and divisions just the same as before; and four years from now, if the end has not come, there will come from the European Division Conference a band of delegates representing their union and local conferences the same as they are represented today in this Conference.
General Discussion
On motion to consider each recommendation separately, the first section of the “Report on European Memorial” (Bulletin, page 91) was read.
Question was then called on No. 1.
The secretary next read No. 2.
J. A. L. Derby: I would like to ask, whether this Division Conference will in any way lessen the representation to the General Conference.
W. T. Knox: It will not.
J. A. L. Derby : Will it in any way lessen the expense of the General Conference?
W. T. Knox: No, I do not know that it will.
J. A. L. Derby: Will it not increase the number of officers in the denomination, and thus increase the amount of money necessarily going for machinery?
W. T. Knox: I do not think so. It creates no additional officers, as far as we have been able to see.
A. G. Daniells: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word on that. It may call for a little more fuel to get up more steam. It may call for the sowing of a little more wheat for the crop. That is a very proper question.
We now have a vice-president superintending that field, who will hereafter be president of the division. In that respect, it will not add officers, nor call for more money. However, there may be some new officers required. And now, brethren, I ask you to think whether that is a loss. It all depends on whether the machine runs faster, doesn’t it? and whether it turns out more product? Suppose you have, in a cotton-mill, ten machines, and the building is large enough for five more, and the cotton is stacked up in great piles. What would you do?
Voices: Add more machines.
A. G. Daniells: Why, yes, you would put in another machine, wouldn’t you? But if the machines you were running were doing all the work, you wouldn’t add any more, of course. If you put in another machine, it would require another operative, and that would take more money. Well, what does that matter, provided the machinery yields good returns? We must regard what comes out of the machine.
We have had to meet the same question in every step of organization. When we organized the Young People’s Department, some one said, “More machinery, more money, more people turning the crank.” “Well,” I said, “let us see what they turn out.” I understood yesterday that it has taken $12,000 to run that machine four years, and it has brought back to us, through the Young People’s Societies, $87,000 in cash. From a financial standpoint it has paid. But this is nothing compared with the tremendous results of soul-winning effort.
L. R. Conradi: There may be a question, if it does cost more money, whether this money will be taken from the funds in this country. I would state that this motion means that Europe will in the future carry all of its officers, the vice-president included. But the motion also includes West Africa and the Canary Islands. That means that America will have to pay ten thousand dollars less for these fields, and that Europe takes the responsibility for them. So it actually eases you of ten thousand dollars.
W. H. Thurston: One question that has been raised is, whether this new division will affect the statement made through the spirit of prophecy that the General Conference should be composed of representatives from all parts of the earth in order to be recognized as the organized work of God. I would like to ask Elder Daniells if this would affect that.
A. G. Daniells: No, it does not affect it a particle, because the Division Conference is by the General Conference constitution made a member of the General Conference, and the delegates from the division are for the Division Conference, union conference, and local conferences.
C. N. Sanders: In organizing this conference is not it simply recognizing what has actually been going on in Europe for the last three or four years? They have been doing this work under another name. They are not separating themselves from us, as I understand it.
M. C. Wilcox: I understand that the first question raised was not so much the matter of expense in the operation of a new conference, as in the expense involved in our general gatherings. Ought it not to mean a lessening of the expense involved in sending so many delegates to the general meetings? Ought not that to mean a cutting down of our representation at the general meetings?
A. G. Daniells: That can only be done by our General Conference constitution, and if we cut down, we will have to cut on the American side as well, because every member of the family must have the same standing. This year our great trouble has been to get people recognized as delegates here who ought to be delegates, and who could not get in with the regular union delegation. If it is concluded that this meeting is not worth the expense; if we think the expenditure of money for a quadrennial meeting is not, from an educational standpoint, justified, then we shall have to take action to greatly lessen our delegates, and have only a small body of counselors come, and leave the masses out.
J. O. Corliss: The success of the third angel’s message depends upon the unification of the work. I know of nothing that does more to unify than a general meeting of this kind. Even though this Conference should cost a quarter of a million, it is worth more than a million dollars after the Conference breaks up. I would not be in favor of cutting down the representation on the basis of economy, for it would not be economy.
J. A. L. Derby: The matter I had in mind was this: If we set off this European Division as a separate division, what is left to the General Conference to administrate; and if we set off the American Division in this way, what is left for the General Conference to administrate? If we do this, then will [p. 110] it pay us any longer to have such an organization as a General Conference? Will not the administration be largely reduced to looking after mission fields? The point is, if the European Conference has reached its majority, has not this Conference also? Why not organize North America as a division conference? This idea has been worked out by other denominations, and has been found to lessen the expense of such organization.
W. A. Spicer: I might answer that the recommendation suggests that this form of divisional organization is to be effected “as the conditions of the work require.” Now in this country we have the headquarters of the General Conference. The union conference presidents here meet as a part of the General Conference Committee nearly every spring and autumn; so there is no difficulty on this side in carrying forward the work. It seemed to the committee wiser to see one division-conference plan worked out where the conditions demand, before extending the plan, just as in Australasia the union-conference plan was worked out before it was extended to all parts.
E. K. Slade: For several years I have anticipated a move of this kind, in view of the work that is being done in Europe. Especially since listening to the splendid reports from the different union conferences in Europe, it seems to me that this is a very appropriate time to study this question. It may be necessary at the time of another session to make some change in representation. That is something that can be handled at any time. But it seems to me that it is in perfect harmony with the light that has come to us to settle this question now.
R. C. Porter: The plan seems to be a very natural one, just the same as the Australasian plan was a natural development. Europe is quite distant from the center of administration. There is no real need for the organization of a North American Division Conference at the present time, because we have the center of administration right here in North America. But in Europe it is otherwise. The principle would eventually extend the plan to all parts, but the North American Division is not in need of any such organization at the present time, because it is so close to headquarters, and we can afford to wait. Will this lessen the General Conference administration’s opportunity to lift in the European Division by having this organization?—Not in the least. The constitution provides that all members of the General Conference Committee are members of the Division Conference organization. They take right hold and help in that organization, as part of it, just the same as they do of the General Conference organization here. I believe it will facilitate the hastening on of our work in the European Division. I am fully clear that the time has come to take this step. Then, later, we may organize other divisions as the providence of God may indicate.
F. W. Stray: I would like to ask two questions for information: Have these unions in the European Division been paying a tithe into the General Conference treasury, as we do here? and, second, In the proposed organization will they pay a tithe to the General Conference treasury?
L. R. Conradi: These unions have paid to the sub-treasury of the General Conference their tithe. They turned over this year surplus tithe to the amount of over twelve thousand dollars. [The speaker hereupon read an action of the European delegation concerning this matter, which later came before the conference and was acted upon.]
J. A. L. Derby: I do not wish it to be understood that I am opposed to this recommendation, for I am not.
Question was called, and number three was read.
On motion of W. W. Prescott; the word “each” was substituted for “the” in the second line, making it read, “the general mission funds of each division,” etc.
Question was called, and number four was read.
Question was called, and action was taken upon the whole report, the same being unanimously adopted.
W. T. Knox: If there is no objection, we will give the delegates from the European Division an opportunity to present a matter.
L. R. Conradi: We would present two actions taken yesterday afternoon by the delegates assembled here from Europe. The following are the minutes:—
“European delegation meetings, May 21, 1913. Meeting was called to order by Elder Conradi. Prayer was offered by J. T. Boettcher. Guy Dail was asked to take the minutes of the meeting.
“Voted, That we as delegates of the European Division favor the organization of the European Division Conference in harmony with the recommendation of the General Conference at this session.
“Voted, That we favor the European Division Conference paying to the General Conference a tithe of its regular tithe. It was carried unanimously.”
We would submit this for your consideration.
M. C. Wilcox: I move that we accept these minutes, and show our appreciation of the sentiments expressed by spreading the minutes upon the records of this Conference.
The motion was carried.
W. T. Knox: There is now no motion before the house.
G. B. Thompson: I move that the report of the committee on constitution (page 92), be adopted.
The motion was seconded.
The Conference had concluded consideration of the first three articles of the constitution at the time of adjournment. The report was amended to read as follows:—
Report on General Conference Constitution
The committee on constitution submit the following report:—
1. We recommend, That the constitution and by-laws of the General Conference be changed as follows:—
Article III, section 1, to read:—
“Section 1. The membership of this conference shall consist of:—
“(a) Such division conferences as have been or shall be properly organized and accepted by vote.
“(b) Such union conferences not included in any division conference as have been or shall be properly organized and accepted by vote.
“(c) Such local conferences not embraced in any union conference, as have been or shall be properly organized and accepted by vote.
“(d) Such division missions and such union missions not included in any division conference as have been or shall be properly organized and accepted by vote.
“(e) Missions, properly organized, not included in union missions.”
Article III, section 3, to read:—
“Sec. 3. Delegates at large shall be:—
“(a) The General Conference executive committee.
“(b) Such representatives of missions of the General Conference and superintendents of work among the various foreign-speaking peoples in the North American Division and superintendents of work under the North American Negro Department, as shall receive delegates’ credentials from the executive committee, such credentials to be given only by the consent of a majority of the executive committee.”
Article III, section 4, to read:—
“Sec. 4. Regular delegates shall be such persons as are duly accredited by division conferences, by union conferences not included in any division conference, and local conferences not included in any union conference.”
Article III, section 5, to read:—
“Sec. 5. Each division conference shall be entitled to one delegate without regard to numbers, an additional delegate for each union and local conference in its territory, and an additional delegate for each five hundred of its membership. Each union conference not included in a division conference shall be entitled to one delegate without regard to numbers, an additional delegate for each conference in its territory, and an additional delegate for each five hundred of its membership. Each local conference not included in a union conference shall be entitled to one delegate without regard to numbers, and one additional delegate for each five hundred members. Union missions and local missions not included in division or union conferences shall have such representation as may be decided by the General Conference executive committee.”
In considering Article III, section 5, the following discussion ensued:—
E. W. Farnsworth: I would like a little light upon how this will work out. I am not quite clear. Now, for instance, in selecting delegates to the General Conference, the committee of the Division Conference comes together and selects delegates to the General Conference, one for itself, and an additional delegate for each conference in its territory, and then another delegate for each five hundred of its membership. Will it not work this way, that the union conference in this division will select a delegate for itself and then one for every five hundred of its membership? If so, does it not present a double representation? That is, if the Division Conference selects one for every five hundred members, and the union conference also does the same, do they not have a double representation? I would like a little light on that.
W. T. Knox: By this arrangement, the representation comes from the Division Conference, and not from the union.
E. W. Farnsworth: Then is the union, as a unit, not represented at all?
W. T. Knox: No ; it obtains its representation in the same manner as the [p. 111] local Conference now obtains its representation through the union.
E. W. Farnsworth: Then, if I understand you correctly, the representation of the union conference, as a unit, will be dropped out.
W. T. Knox: The plan is for each union to be represented by one delegate; the Division has, in addition to this, one for each five hundred members throughout its territory.
J. A. L. Derby: I would like to ask a question. Are the General Conference and the North American Division organized differently, or are they the same thing?
W. T. Knox: I would say, Brother Derby, that while there is a North American Division; there is no North American Division Conference.
J. A. L. Derby: I move, Brother Chairman, that the words, “and an additional delegate for each five hundred of its membership,” be stricken out.
A Voice: Why?
J. A. L. Derby: It seems to me that in having so many local and union and division conferences, and so on, that it would be just as well for the local conference to instruct its delegates to the union conference, and for the union conference to instruct its delegates to the division conference, and this would very materially lessen the expense of a general gathering like this, and yet I do not see how it could in any way operate against the democracy of the denomination. I do not see the necessity of having so many delegates from union conferences.
W. A. Spicer: Brother Chairman, we remember that when the Conference gathered here in session, it was found that even this basis of representation was not sufficient, and there has been quite an addition made to the delegation by the Conference session. If we cut out this provision, the representation would be perhaps a third less.
Voices: Two thirds.
J. A. L. Derby: Brother Chairman, the question is, if these divisions are organized, does it not take away from the General Conference a large amount of work that it is now doing? Will not a large proportion of the work that the General Conference is now doing be handed over to the European Division Conference? If so, why should the European Division Conference have just as much representation as it now has?
A. G. Daniells: I think there is a misconception with reference to the matter of taking away the work. The organization of either a local conference or a union or a division conference does decentralize detail work. It distributes it. If we had no conference at all, except a central body, then of course our duties would be many. We should then have to look after churches, and all that. But when we organize a local conference, that steps in between the central body and the church, and looks after those details.
When we organized the union conference, we distributed many duties of a detail character that the General Conference Committee was looking after. The interests of local conferences and those cares were then thrust upon the union conference officers. But in doing that, brethren, we did not take out of the hands of the central body the general administration of affairs of the denomination.
We found many a question that passed by the local conference to the union conference, and had to go on to the General Conference, and I think our General Conference sessions have been as greatly pressed with affairs of large character as ever passed before a union conference organization. Instead of legislating regarding matters pertaining to local conferences, we have been able to lengthen our vision with reference to great missionary enterprises. We have been able to make the General Conference a little more educational. We have been able to give more attention to the departments of work than we could have done without the union conference organization.
Now when we organize the Division Conference, we do not cut off the interests of Europe from this central body. There are great questions of administration, departments of work, institutional interests, all of which will always have to go under the general legislative work of the General Conference. If you should organize North America into a division conference, there would still come to the General Conference many important questions relating to administration, institutional, and departmental work. You do not cut those things off. You cut off details, but not the great, important problems that are always arising. Now it is a very serious matter for us to vote out this part of the representation, one for every five hundred members. What would you have left? You would have the General Conference Committee, with forty-five members. You would have no other representation from the union conferences. All you would have would be this and about twenty-five members more, being the presidents of the twenty-five union conferences, and one delegate for each local conference. That would leave out your departments, your institutions, your editors, and all that class of men. At every session of the General Conference our conferences have been so anxious that their departments, educational men, editors, and publishers, should be here to attend the conference, and share in the deliberations, that they have requested us to suspend the constitution, and permit them to attend. And we have been glad to do it. Now if you cut this out, you would seriously affect the delegation.
We see more in a General Conference, brethren, than the transaction of legislative affairs; than simply passing recommendations. We see a great value from the educational standpoint. Now what is the Educational Department doing in this conference? What is the value to our medical work for our physicians and nurses to attend these daily meetings? What is the benefit to our young people of having young people’s meetings? This educational work is of unspeakable value. Of course you could have these departmental meetings held as often as once in four years, or oftener; but then this would multiply expense. The value is in having them in a general gathering like this.
W. T. Knox: The hour has come, for adjournment.
Pending consideration of the constitution, the conference was adjourned, the question having been called on Article III, section 5.
W. T. Knox, Chairman,
W. A. Spicer, Secretary.