Previous to its formation, the preachers on the Susquehanna District, in Western New York, (eighteen in number,) belonged to the Philadelphia Conference, and it was a long distance to go to conference on horseback, which was then their usual mode of traveling; so also the preachers in Canada and Cayuga District, who belonged to New York Conference. Mr. Asbury believed there was a more excellent way for both preachers and people. Much time was lost, and the work on circuits suffered by the long absence of the preachers. Bishop Asbury, with almost a prophet’s eye, foresaw the growth and prosperity of Western New York; that it would be the garden of the Empire State, and the garden of Methodism. In 1809, while the bishop and I were passing through the Genesee country, as we were riding along he said to me, “Henry, things do not go right here. There must be a Genesee Conference;” and then he went on to assign his reasons. The bishop then planned the conference and its boundaries in his own mind, and proceeded afterward to carry his purpose into effect. The new conference was composed of four districts, namely, Susquehanna, Cayuga, and Upper and Lower Canada, and it was to hold its first session in Lyons, Ontario County, July 20, 1810. This act of the bishop gave great dissatisfaction to many of the preachers, not of the Genesee, but of other conferences. James Smith and Jesse Lee were greatly displeased. The former said “it gave evidence of the increasing infirmities of age in Bishop Asbury; that he was in his dotage,” etc.; others considered it an unauthorized assumption of power; and some said “it was cruel, setting off these preachers to starve.” I justified him, and said “I thought it one of the best official acts of the bishop, and that in a few years Genesee Conference would be one of the richest in the Union.” How far I was right may be easily seen. It certainly was the best thing that could have been done for the Methodists in Western New York. The plan originated with Bishop Asbury, who was better acquainted with the state of things in that part of the country than his colleague; but Bishop M’Kendree concurred in it, and therefore received his share of the censure. But very nobly some of the conferences vindicated the bishops, for most of them took action upon it. That the bishops were perfectly justifiable is evident from the fact that in 1796 a proviso had been inserted in the Discipline in these words: “Provided that the bishops shall have authority to appoint other yearly conferences in the interval of the General Conference, if a sufficiency of new circuits be anywhere formed for that purpose.” This was re-enacted at each succeeding conference, with a slight change, until 1832; therefore the bishop’s act was constitutional, and there was no reason to complain of “assumed powers,” etc.