BY indisputable facts and records, we have shown to some extent the character of “the usual exemption” with respect to Sunday laws, “for those who keep the Sabbath day,” which by resolution and otherwise is favored by the N. W. C. T. U.
Now it must be remembered that this resolution favoring that “usual exemption” was adopted by the Union at the late national convention at Seattle as a substitute for a resolution that was already before the convention; and “as involving all necessary points, and omitting the objectionable ones,” in the original resolution.
Understanding the real character and effect of “the usual exemption,” which they favor, and that this “covers all necessary points,” and avoids all “objectionable ones,” in the original resolution, it is of especial interest to study the original resolution that was before the convention, to know what are the objectionable points in it.
And here is that original resolution:—
“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 pursecution [sic.] or to in any manner interfere with the most perfect liberty of conscience concerning days, or the manner of their observance.”
Now we ask every soul to look carefully through that resolution, word by word and clause by clause. Please consider it in all its bearings from beginning to end. And when you have thoroughly weighed and considered it, then reflect, and weigh also the fact, that the N. W. C. T. U., in convention assembled, found in that resolution objectionable points to such an extent that it was actually set aside for a substitute involving such points who keep the Sabbath day.”
According to the situation as it stands, the W. C. T. U. has taken the position that it is an objectionable thing for anybody to ask the N. 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 or 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 anybody, 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.
It is an objectionable thing for anybody to ask the N. 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 to use any lines of W. C. T. U. work so as to interfere with perfect liberty of conscience concerning days and the manner of their observance.
It is an objectionable thing for anybody to ask the N. W. C. T. U. 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 and malice, to use the material and machinery of the N. W. C. T. U. to persecute concerning days and the manner of their observance.
So the N. 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 N. 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 N. 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 fears for Sunday and Sunday laws to become so aroused that they utterly lost sight of all merits of the resolution before them; that all calmness of consideration was forgotten; and that in this “state of mind” they rushed the resolution out of the way by whatever means possible. And in the doing of this, they committed themselves to the position that it is objectionable for anybody to ask them to protest against the use of their material and machinery to persecute and to interfere with liberty of conscience concerning days and the manner of their observance.
It is a good thing that the national Union has the whole year before it, in which to consider and to look soberly at what they really did, and then have an opportunity in the next annual convention to correct the mistake into 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 they confirm their declaration to the effect that it is an objectionable thing for them to be asked to protest against any such interpretation or use of any lines of W. C. T. U. work as can be made to serve the purposes of persecution, or to interfere with the most perfect liberty of conscience concerning days and the manner of their observance? These are proper and interesting questions.
A.T. J.