The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1893-04-19

The Moderator-we cannot allow any ful
''Do you still habitually violate the Sabbat
| by working in the Telephone Exchnage?" ws
| the double question asked her. Good men o
ten commit errors through the fullacy of
double question which in Itself implies an az
cusation.
WANTED MISS MEANS TO STUDY TYPEweIr
ING, AND RUN THE RISK OF GETTING
AN INFERIOR JOB.
The pastor offered to pay the expenses o
teaching her typewriting and stenography
This she also refused. "Since when did 1t be
come q crime To refuse position In any
bOdy's store, or refuse education at anotbe
mans ex pense? Her pride would not ALLOW
her to accept the charities OF another whel
she could make her own way In the world.
THE MEN ARE ExCUsED-MIss MEANS IS FIX
COMMUNICATED.
The charge against the session was injus
tice. 1t was too partial. The same kind o
treatment was not given to number OF 9th
ers who are members OF this church and who
worked on Sunday. Among the names men
toned ny DIR. Finn were those of Rober
Stuart Marks, who is employed on the Regis
ter and is often engaged until early sunday
morning; Mr.. Swygert-who, IL Is claimed
employs substitute on Sunday and Is don.
bly, gullty-the gatekeeper at the railroad E
A. Lewis. foreman on the railroad. who often
does Sunday duty; w. II. Girardeau, OF the
Richmond and DanVille Railroad omce; Whc
has to meet one train on Su nday Claude
Girardeau. who ia employed at the express Of
fee and often has Sunday work and James
Glenn, who is employed at the Columbia post
office and has to do Sunday work. DR.. Finn
stated Mr.. Glenn admitted he was equally
guilty with the young lady.
There two conditions under which work on
Sunday is allowed. namely cases Of necessi
D,,ka 4, vNxHlt ltNa.
bic to all II to one, and no distinction should
be made. Large institutions cannot be re-
gulated to 1T special cases. Servants are
made to do work on the Sabbath. Why
support life be cast from the Church OF God ?
The great question confronting the Church
now ia whether 1t should turn out oil the
good men whose business requires them to
work on Sunday.
DOESN'T ANSWER. SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, BUT
DEALS IN GENERALITIEs.
Mr.. Black burn then began his argument In
defense of the course Of the session. It was
entirely general, and did not meet the specific
points made by DR.: Finn: He, He spoke &c OF the The
great Institutions given by God TO man-mar'
riage and the Sabbath. The tendency 10 vio-
late the fundame entail law Of these Inst lions
was becoming greater every day, and as the
upholding OF society depends upon them they
should be kept religlously inviolate.
DENYING MISS MEANS THE RIGHT TO
BE HEARD.
The party upon whom the sentence was
passed does not complain. 1t is made by one
who was not present at the sessions meeting
and who has been member Of the church
only two Or three months. Miss Means was
the only one present besides the members OF
the session, and no complaint Is presented
from her. The complainants claim that we
circumstances. there
fore can't prosecute intelligenty.
DR.. Flinn-That is your construction OF 1t.
POOR PREACHING AND POORER REASONING.
Anything contrary to the word of God is a
violation OF 1t. The viola tion OF the Sabbath
is specifically forbidden In the fourth COM
mandment. He said that the telephone was
not q necessity because IL was used only by
hotels, livery stables, newspapers, etc., which
were not necessities. He said necessities were
divided into two classes-emergencies and
the avocations of life such as are required OF
a guard at penitentiary or an attendant 10
the asylum. Necessity must apply TO the
work and not TO the person doing the work.
He said one violation Of the Sabbath was as
bad as another. II members OF the Church
we're suspended for ambling, stealing, lying,
ETC., then they should also be suspended Tor
Sabbath breaking. One was as much VIOLA
tIon OF Gods law as the other.
Mr.. Black burn then discussed the matter as
TO whether this telephone exchange WORK
exchange was a Sabbath-breakin ing institution;
the use OF the telephones was breaking the
Sabbath. In this particular case there was
Sabbath breaking.
not required to work on Sunday; that MIR.
McCreery, one of the members Of the church,
had asked her what salary she received ana
had offered her q position at the same, same salary
himself had asked her TO study typewrlting
and stenography at his expense.
Nothing that was not contained In that re-
cord furnished by the session to the Presoy.
terry should be considered. All these charges
were not before the Presbytery at all. In re-
gard TO how the young lady came before the
session, he quoted the session OF the churcn
law which he claimed governed the case, q nd
said all that talk amounted TO nothing.
There was q legitimate way for the complaint
TO come before the Presbytery, which was ex-
planned.
DIDN'T CARE WHETHER PROCEEDINGS WERE
REGULAR.
confused the pastor throughout
with the session. he Was not there. however,
TO defend himself, but TO defend the action III !,
OF the session. he did not care what was said
in the complaint; II made no difference
whether the allegations made were true or
not. He knew that the young lady had been
working there for some time. He did all he
could to get her to leave:
.
ing Sabbath breaking, and 1t required that o
member of the church should brea the Sab.
bath. There was not case OF such Saooatf-
breaking In the Second Presbyterian Church
so far as he knew. II was his intention to
proceed against Miss Means. He had tried TO
convince her and gel her to stop in time.
She refused and there was nothing left for
him to do but act: He told her ne w9n,d nays hnye
explained TO her her rights In the matter and
told her that she could get any member OF
the congregation to defend her. Ut was the
work Of the Lord that l was doing. why
SPLITTING HAIRS.
She said that she wished to come be fore the
session and she was asked by him to fx d
time. She came and 80 1t happened that the
matter came up. He told her again before
the court convened to give up the place. She
made statement that she knew that she was
violating the Sabbath. He said that the SEES
sion had to come before the presbytery with
an accurate and true presentation OF the case
and what was there Was such a true statement
Could 1t be possible that the complainants
who were not present knew more about what
was done than the session members them
selves? Could the veracity OF these com
plainants be placed against that OF the ses'
He could not give Miss Means a letter To
another church after the case had begun. II
would have placed the session In fix II II
granted letter 10 her. He knew that great
many hard things were being said about him
and the session, but they could stand IT.
In reply TO a question from DR.. Finn he
said the session had not formed the same
opinion of the case as he had previously done
Miss Means said she had violated the Sabbath b
day; had used that very identical word
There was no necessity Of her violating the
Sabbath. 1t was not necessity for her TO work
on Sunday and she had no right TO do IT. The
session could not have acted otherwise than
II did Indefinite suspension was absolutely
necessary. ! they had let that case go by
they would never have been uble to enforce
discipline In the church in the future had IL