IN the late National W. C. T. U. convention, held at Seattle, Wash., the following resolution was introduced for adoption:—
“Resolved, That as a National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union we protest against any such interpretation or use of any lines of our work as shall give aid or comfort to those who, through ignorance, prejudice, or malice, would enact or enforce such laws as can be made to serve the purpose of persecution, or to in any manner to interfere with the most perfect liberty of conscience concerning days, or the manner of their observance.”
This was vigorously opposed by the national superintendent of Sunday observance, and several presidents of State unions; and finally the following substitute was offered “as involving all necessary points, and omitting the objectionable ones” in the original resolution:—
“Resolved, That we favor the amendment of all State Sunday laws which do not contain the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day.”
The substitute was adopted by the convention. From the statement of the author of the substitute there are “objectionable points” in that original resolution. Now we ask every soul to look that resolution through carefully, word by word, weigh it, consider it in all its bearings from beginning to end, and mark any objectionable point that it is possible to find.
According to the situation as it stands, it is an objectionable thing for anybody to ask the National W. C. T. U. to protest against any such interpretation or use of any lines of W. C. T. U. work as shall give aid and comfort to those who, through ignorance, prejudice, or malice, would enact or enforce such laws as can be made to serve the purposes of persecution.
Accordingly, therefore, to the W. C. T. U., it is not an objectionable thing for any body through ignorance, prejudice, or malice so to use any lines of W. C. T. U. work as to enact or enforce such laws as can be made to serve the purpose of persecution.
That is to say: It is an objectionable thing to ask the National W. C. T. U. to protest against persecution. It is an objectionable thing to ask the National W. C. T. U. to protest against persecution even by those who through prejudice or malice would persecute.
It is an objectionable thing for anybody to ask the National W. C. T. U. to protest against any such interpretation or use of any lines of W. C. T. U. work as shall in any manner interfere with the most perfect liberty of conscience concerning days, or the manner of their observance.
Accordingly, therefore, it is not an objectionable thing for anybody so to use any lines of W. C. T. U. work as to interfere with perfect liberty of conscience concerning days and the manner of their observance.
It is not an objectionable thing to the National W. C. T. U. for anybody to use the machinery and material of the W. C. T. U. so as to interfere with liberty of conscience concerning days in a matter of their observance.
This is only to confirm the previous “point” that it is an objectionable thing to ask the National W. C. T. U. to protest against persecution; it is an objectionable thing for anybody to ask the National W. C. T. U. even to protest against the use of their material and machinery, even by the prejudiced and malicious, in persecuting; it is not, to the National Union, an objectionable thing for anybody, even in prejudice in malice, to use the material and machinery of the National W. C. T. U. to persecute concerning days and the matter of their observance.
So the National W. C. T. U. has taken its position, has written itself down, and has published itself to the world. Assuredly, therefore, it was proper and most timely that a member should give notice, as was given, “that at the next annual convention I, or some one in my place, will offer the following amendment to the constitution:—
“ARTICLE VI.—PLANS OF WORK
“Nothing shall ever be incorporated into any plan of W. C. T. U. work, by department or otherwise, which must of necessity become the occasion of sectarian controversy, or which can in any sense be made to interfere with perfect liberty of conscience.”
Now let it be understood that we do not say that the National W. C. T. U. consciously, intentionally, and of forethought, put themselves thus on record as not objecting to persecution or interference with liberty of conscience concerning days and the manner of their observance. We are perfectly satisfied and free to say that the women of the convention did what they did without any consideration at all of the real thing that they were doing. It is evident that they allowed their zeal for Sunday and Sunday laws so to blind them to all merits of the resolution before them, that all calmness of consideration was forgotten; and that in this “state of mind” they rushed it out of the way of whatever means possible. And in the doing of this, they committed themselves to the declaration that it is objectionable for anybody to ask them to protest against [740] the use of their material and machinery to persecute and to interfere with liberty of conscience concerning days and the manner of their observance.
In is a good thing that the National Union has a whole year before it, in which to consider and to look soberly at what they really did; and then in next annual convention correct the mistake in which they allowed themselves to be hurried.
And having considered the subject for a whole year, then, at the next annual convention, will they really correct their mistake? or will the confirm it?
A. T. J.