Mississippi leader. (Jackson, Miss.) 1892-1895, 1893-08-01
BROOKIIAVEN, MISSISSIPPI, TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1898

members of the Tennessee Con-
ference responsible for the results
of the election which followed
their last meeting. We are sor-
ry to say of that, or any other
statement the brother has made,
it is utterly without foundation
in fact. Our argument held the
members of the Tennessee Con
ference responsible only for the
casting of their own votes, and in
no sense for the general results of
the election. He says we refer
to the vote on the amendment
and seem "surpriscd' that it was
so changed in the next political
campaign. We expressed not
one word of surprise, but merely
made an argument on the ques-
ton of advantages that might
have accrued to the cause of pro-
hibition if all who voted for the
amendment had stood together
and made the fight permanent
one. Just how a good brother
can be so blind, or so deceive
himself, as to sit down and write
such perversions of another bro
thcr's statements, is one of the
mysteries; and yet such is the fact
Is it any wonder then that inspi-
ration exclaims, "Thc OK know
eth his owner, and the ass his
master crib !: but Israel doth not
know, my people doth not con
slider. :
He replies to our gentle criti-
cism of the position of Chancellor
Garland in the Kelley case, and
suddenly dives out of sight OF
nineteen-twentieths of his read
crs into the depths of language
of past ages to bring up from the
vast storehouse of his knowledge
Il quotation suited to the occasion
and to the party involved. But
he adduces not one word of ar
gument to show that Chancellor
Garland's position was not fairly
set forth, or that its results were
not logically drawn. He says OF
our argument "Reduced to it,
last analysis, it consigns the
whole lot of us to hell, without
one ray of hope to cheer us.
As the brother is Il preacher OF
the gospel, he ought to remem
Der, if he does not, that it is not
the argument that makes one fee
like going to hell, but it is the pc
sition that the argument exposes
And if he has been thus jostled by
what we have written on the sub
ject, it might be well for him tt
do what he sometimes advises th,
sinners to do when convinced o.
sin-eXamine carefully the foun
dation on which he stands, rather
than try to shake off conviction
by saying hard things about us
He says our ''first mistake il
the idea of Il political church.
And yet he must know, if he viii
stop to think, that he has never
read Il line or heard word from
us that advocated any such thing,
any further than the individual
responsibility of church members
for the results of any other vol
untary act. He says our argu-
ments are "mcre assumptions.
If SO, they ought to be very cas-
lily met and overthrOwn; and yet
he does us the very great I'M JUS
ticc of not attempting to meet
or overthrow single one OF
them. He says: "To put ev-
cry one on the side of the saloon,
which is the devils most power
agency, simply because of voting
the Democratic or Republican
ticket, can be nothing more nor
less than blind fanaticism. But
who has done that We have
insisted that Christian men ought
to vote for those only to make
and execute laws for them who
personally represent and will
earnestly and faithfully contend
for the great moral principles i'll
government that they believe to
be right, regardless of past or
present party affiliations. But
when we do this, the brother
looks around, stretches his eyes,
scratches his head, and with
marks of despair upon his coun-
tenance, seen nowhere except in
the face of one called to yield up
his idolatry, exclaims "You
are trying to break up the Dem
ocratic or the Republican party. y
Why do men Jump at that sort of
Il conclusion Why do they not
=. . ..,,x, ,>,o,t thn ~ll,,,.,,