The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1893-04-19
Wednesday, April 10, 1898
The Case of Miss Means.

me Sbbt VI IulSS Nc'hSs
Wecopy from the State the fullest and most
complete account that has been published of
the manner in which Miss Sadie NJ. Means OF
this county was recently treated by the Sec.
ond Presbyterian church of Columbia.
Without exception every man who has
spoken OF this matter in our presence has ex-
pressed his indignation at the manner In
which the proceedings have been taken
against her.
The form Of the question upon which Miss
Meanss confession is alleged to have been
made is a method which we think would not
have been resorted to by any court OF justice
which was governed by proper sense Of
right and wrong.
The question was this:
"Do You still habitually violate the Sah-
bath by working In the telephone exchange?"
Instead OF properly notifying Miss Means Of
the gravity Of the penalty which they pro-
posed to infiict, and instead of putting her on
her guard. and impressing her with the neces-
. sity OF having some one to look after her IL
terests and see that she was not unjustly and
Illegally dealt with, the pious and Christian
preachers make double question, to the latter
part OF which they knew she was obliged to
answer In the affirmative. and 1t was certainly
TO that part OF the question which she did an
swer, and yet that conscientious Christian
court takes the advantage Of her inexper-
ence, puts q wrong construction upon her
words, and interprets the answer to suit their
own purposes, namely: that she had &C.
knowledged that she habitually violated the
Sabbath.
The truth Is, that she meant to say
no snch thing. She plainly meant to say
that she still worked in the telephone ex-
change, and we take it for granted that there
was not q man on that count who had not SUI.
fcient Intelligence to know that they had pui
the wrong construction on her answer. The
presumption is against the fair intentions Of
any man who would construct such a double
question for an inexperienced person, and /,
does not sound we'll for any man knowingly
TO put a wrong construction on such persons
answer.
Miss Means had not violated the Sabbath
day. II there had been any violation of the
sanctity Of the day 1t was done by the tele-
phone exchange in requiring her to work.
She was It's servant, and as such she was
bound to obey, and is not responsible.
Until there is a law Of the church forbid
ding members to work for the exchange, she
could not have been lawfully turned out OF
the church for doing 50.
AS we understand 1t, the pious prosecutor
allowed two brothers-n-law who worked on
Sunday to remain in the communion from
which Miss Means was excluded No COM
ment necessary.
Nearly everybody In this country, either
works himself or requires bis employees to do
so. To begin: Preachers, we are told, have
been known TO work on or to study their ser.
mons on Sunday morning. In so doing they
were just as guilty OF violation OF the Sab
bath as the scholar who studied his lesson. or
as the lawyer who worked on his case, or as
the editor who may have written editorials
or as any one elre who may have written let
ters.
There are few families in this com mmunity
who do not sit down to warm meals three
times day. To prepare these warm meals
somebody must work. No matter how pious
our good people may be, we are not informed
Of any one who does not require their SER
wants to COOK on Sunday, and we have no,
even heard OF any preacher who refuses warm
food on that day. Somebody has to work to
make It fresh and warm. In hundreds Of
places we have heard of people working on
Sunday, but Miss Means IS the only person
who has yet been excom mun cated for SO do
ing. AS there are many thousand women
who cook and do household work every Sun.
day, Is 1t not possible that 1t is the respecta-
bility OF the work which Miss Means il doing
that excites the holy horror of the pious
court? II 1t is not SO. why have they not
taken steps to excommunicate their own
cooks and chambermaids? If they are really
conscientious and honest In their expressed
opinion of the sanclity OF the Sabbath, why
have they not themselves withdrawn from
the communion Of the church, because they
compel cooks and chambermaids to work on
Sunday?
The church has perfect right to make any
rule 1t pleases as to its membership, but the
outside world would have more respect for
the church which does not seek TO Cypress
orphan and unprotected women, while giving
special privileges to men. Let the same rule
apply to all.
While the sanctity OF the Sabbath is now 50
zealousy urged, may we not ask If there Is
not profanity In the pulpit, and an irreverent
manner Of calling the name OF the Almighty
hundred times in one brief hour. By what
right do we hear OF "God Almighty's earth"
or Goods church." or Goods Judgment" or
Goods ways" Has any mortal man yet
been authorized to call His name, except In
feverential awe?