Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1889-05-29

"One said the man who moved ths
prev ous question must have been 4,
silent member, and probably learned
his tactics by passing rs voting
member through some Legislative
body during bear garden perfOr
nance but 1t was not the kind of 6
gag 10 place over the mouth of q
Christian congregation
1t appears thau j. :. Law is the
man who moved the previous
question. In another column viii
ba found q communication from
hm on the subject Justifying him.
self for the motion, on the ground
that It was parliamentary motion,
aud that he had Witnessed its appli-
cation IN 1880 in Presbyterian
synod in Lewistown when the
question between the old aud new
school Presbyterians was under dis
cussiou.
It j. source OF regret to US that
our old friend Law does not make
out better case for himself for
while We simply put into language
the criticism Of another ON his mo
ZION We are called on to speak for
the expression Of the man who criti-
Used Law : motion, and III speaking
1ur the expression we are compelled
o. b. Just and impartial and declare
that Alr Laws article does not in
the least help his case.
Indeed IL Is sort Of left handed
confession that the expression Is
correct, for mark il, the expression
j. particular IN iutimating that
Laws tactics or motion was such as
II. employed III Legislative bodies,
and II such bodies Is Just where the
parliamentary law that Mr. Law
knows 50 much about II brought
into PlHy, On the point of the par
liamentary law there is no disagree
Iurut hetweeu the citizen and Mr.
Law. They both agree that II was
IN application uf parliamentary law
tu move the previous question.
Law SAWS II was applied in the
congregation when the time had
fully arrived for the application Of it
on tuut occasion
The citizen saws II - applied in
Legislative bodies during bear garden
performances.
Nr Law and citizen If they do not
employ the same language 10 express
the fact that the previous question j.
used t. shut III all further dis
CIz-juE during 81 Jsruh'y-ome time IL .
su assembly they certainly ly mean that, ,
- there Is au agreement on that
point
Mr. Law goes back and cites Il
cJI~y whom he witnessed the applica-
t.ou II the motion for the previous
question III a Synod IN L.ewistown IL
1890 when the disturbing clement of
the "old and new school was diyid-
ing the Presbyterian church In
behalf uf the expression of citizen We
are forced To- -av that the case before
the Mltliintown congre cation and the
case. before the LewIstown SYNOD in
1880 are not alike only in the apph-
cation If the gag law.
To- gag the SYNOD in 1880 ON the
question ut tho discussion Of the ''old /,
and new school, If proper, does not .
prove that II WAS proper to gag the /
SlIflIntuwn cnngreg cation from e1-
pressing itself on the subject Of the .
resignation Of SIr HAYS. /
The subject before the synod was
"a national one and could not be /
determined In congregation, or in Il .
pr.sbyterv
The subject before the Mifflintown
congregation Is not q national one
It IL only a local one TO be determin-
ed hy one congregation and Hunt
IngdOn Presbetry. Can Mr. Law
see the difference. ?
At this point ID where the eI
precision Of citizen and Mr.. Law do
not agree. Citizen SAYS lit was not
the kind IF a Gng to place over the
mouth Of n Christian congregation, .
Mr.. Law saws it was
Citizen VIII tell Mr. Law that the
men who protested against the pro
ceedings Of the meeting had not
been heard, had not had an upper-
tunIty 10 tell why their petitioners
d',Ired that Mr.. HAYS should be
taken at his word and he allowed to
depart IN peace He viii tell Mr..
Law that according to his own show
ing the cases are not alike for in
the ease of the Synod according to
Law own article the question had
been fully discussed by DR. Backin-
ridge and DIR. STYLES, and others.
Citizen viii tell Mr. Law that he Is
unfortunate IN his case of analogy,
for IN the Lewistown case the SYNOD
was never recOnvened 10 reconsider
the subject which the application Of
the gag shut out. but in the case of
the Nhtflintowu congregation, the
congregation has been cited To- meet
on the 3lst, and consider the question
If the resignation Of Mr. Havs.
Citizen, IN his measure of the mover
ut the previous question took his
measure quite we'll for by the ad-
missions Of Laws article he has visit
cd u regular Spanish bull fight, also
81 bull and bear fight. Just the kind
ut a place that they would move the
previous question on man ON the
hrNt sign # disapproval of their pro
CeedIugs and ii he never witnessed
arbitrary bear garden rule he
practiced it himself in the Presby-
terian church on the 18th inst. From
his communication it appears he
Slorles IN the practice upon the
MIifimtoWn cpngr5 CATION of ms ear V
Christian training, and experience
acquired IN the lobby Of the Ken
tuckv legislature, and the experience
acquired during vigilance committee
times in California and IN the legis-
iature of that state.
Sir. Law speaks Of responsibility,
but OF what avail Is the assumption
Of esponsability when it carries no
restitution He proposes no re
stitution. indeed his motion was in
tended to bring about the passage of
the LYONS petition aud resolution