St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1884-11-06
The Duty of Voting.
To the Editor of The CaIedonian.

That we may take up no space in
unnecessary discussion, and yet make
it evident that nothing is this time
overlooked, will begin with a state
ment of the question now at issue be-
tween us. 1t is being narrowed down.
enquirer" admits not only that our
nation should recognize God as the
source of all national authority, and
that it should settle such questions
as the liquor question according to
His law, but he also admits that while
the constitution remains thus defec-
tive, allowing snch an evil thing as
the liquor traffic to stand under its
protection, Christian cannot swear to
accept it as his supreme law or ask
another man to execute such evil laws,
except on the principle of "doing evil
that good may come" He admits
that to do this would make us as dis
loyal to God as entering into the con-
tederacy would have made IA man dis
10 al to the Union. So far, now, we
agree. With these facts admitted, it
seems to me that the whole question
of duty is decided, for the conclusion
then rests upon the self-evident truths.
that it is never right to do wrong, and
that over against every wrong there is
possible right. That sin is always sin
is as evident to me as that straight
two points.
In the face of these admissions, how
ever, enquirer" says that if he had
been living in South Carolina at the
time of the rebellion, he would have
considered it his duty, as "A Union man,
to have become a rebel for the sake of
the Union. He says, to use his own
words: "Let us admit that lin voting)
we have done evil that good may come
and that our damnation is just"
TO do Enquirer" justice, must ad-
nit that he takes this position not be-
cause he is indifferent as to the moral
quality of his actions, but because he
considers himself forced to take it.
There is to his mind no alternative but
to sin. His argument is this: fit is a
in to vote, it is as great sin not to
vote. Refusing to vote does not re-
Iieve us from responsibility. To use
7 l Al. "a,
runs shop, he (that is. the nOn-vOter)
is partner in the business. He has in
hrrited a share in it wit the rest of
us. There is no difference between
him and the other shareholders in re-
sponsibility." The conclusion from
this is that we all have to sin, anyway
whether we accept the constitution oil
not and if we must sin and cannot
escape from it, we should sin in Il way
that will bring the most good. This,
according to his idea, being settled, he
/ calls my advice to ''do right and trust
in God" IL ''mere abstraction," for, to
his mind, it is impossible to do right
We are all in the liquor business, and
must stay in it, ut least, for time.
This plausible reasoning unfortu-
nately will not bear a very close ex-
animation. Let us look AT it. am,
according to enquirer" one of the
/ share holders. | am one who can vote,
and will not. As such, he says | am
! placed in il position necessarily sinful
/ My first question is, who placed me i'll
such position He says God did.
..inherited share in it with the rest
| will not say that God could not place
us in such position but | do say
that it is Il very serious thing to charge
God with doing it. By Gods prOvi-
dence | was born here. 1t is possible
! that he gave me birthright in the
/ liquor business, making me equally re-
/ snonsible with the rest for sins which
| had no part in creating. Such al
application of the doctrine of Original
sin is II little too original for us. 1t il
/ no answer to say that when God pun
ishes "A nation, all suffer. The same i.
! true when God Furnishes Il family, but
this does not mean that the little child
has any responsibility at all for the
| sins which brought the punishment.
/ But let us see whether God does
this. Who gives me a right to vote
Is it God Then, why did he not make
my wife shareholder, too? Only
about one-fitth of the population can
vote. Was it g cd that made them share
holders, and let the other four fifths
Off? If so, when did he do it, and why
| Who is it that made me a share holder
when | am twenty-One years of age
and would not give it to me before
Was that God BY what law are these
distinctions made so that Il load of
guilt settles down upon me just at that
time ? 1t is evident that if | am made
IA shareholder ut all, it is done not by
Gods law, but 10y mans. | was not
born into it, but thrust into it by man
when became of age. TO me, it is
preposterOus to assert that one man
can be placed by any other man. OF
any body of men, where he is com
PEELED to disobey Gods law. If | do
not consent to your act, how can you
make me inherit guilt? Is God to con-
denim me because some one else has
done something to me ? Yet this is
what he must do, if am placed as he
says am, where, if | vote, break
his law, and if don't vote, break his
law. We know that Jesus was "holy,