The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1894-12-26
WEDNESDAY. DECEMBER 2G, 1894.
JUSTICE TO THE PURITAN.

celebrate FOrefathers' day. The Rev N.
A Hyde presided. Judge Woods. Gov
ernor Matthews and Gen. Harrison were
among the speakers. The principal address
was made by NJ. f. Ingalls, of the Big
-Four railroad. Eloquent and pleasing as
the addresses were, The Sentinel sub
mits that the men who landed on Plym-
outh Rock were not well represented in
them. Puritan life was not a thing that
would be attractive TO many Americans
OF this day II was too strict in minor
matters which this generation considers
lmmaterial The one thing that makes
puritan character lovable was it's stern
devotion TO exact and even-handed justice,
n practice as well as in precep.. Those
men were Englishmen. They recognized
fully English right. They would neither
give more nor accept less. If that one
virtue were taken from them there would
not be much left that anyone would care
to commemorate. That was what made
them. That was what made the common
wealths they established That was what
made this nation.
In the course of the remarks Of Mr.. In
gals he referred 10 his presence in Paris
and his reflections on the excuses Of mob
rule there in past times. continuing thus:
rejoiced that I lived in a land where The
puritan had laid the foundation deep and
life and property were safe-tha laws were
obeyed- But just then the cable brought
the news that in my own country mObS
were repeating the scenes that had been
enacted in the streets Of Paris, and i
asked myself If it could indeed be true
that the people in this fair country Of
mine had so soon forgotten the history of
the past. had 50 soon forgotten the trials
and sorrows through which its foundations
were laid and were willing TO allow the
liberty and law and order that the puritan
had established 10 be destroyed. Could It
be true that the government which had
guaranteed TO me and my children liberty
and protection and a fair opportunity for
the pursuit of life and happiness was TO
be stricken down principally by men who
had come here from other countries with
no idea of liberty and with no interest eX-
cept to Destroy Fortunately we were 50
near the days of the puritan that their
preCepts were not forgotten and peace and
law and order were restored.
Is this true? Would the Iaritans have
decided this case as this notion has decided
il? Remember, If you please, that they
made 10 distinction in persons before the
law. Governor Bradford enforced upon
himself the rule that he who would not
work should not eat, as we'll as upon the
poorest man Of his colony. Governor
Carver fell from sunstroke in the common
field where he labored with the other men.
In their relations with the Indians the
puritans treated them as fellOw-men whose
rights were not to be impaired. True,
they took corn from Indian storehouses.
but they paid for il at the first opportu-
nifty They were honest allies to Massasolt
and fair foes to King Philip. Even Peck
suot and his allies were given equal op-
portuni:y-four to four-man to man.
Imagine Mr.. Pullman before puritan
town-meeting refusing to submit his con-
troversy with MS men for arbitration.
Imagine his profession that he had reduced
the price of his product solely to give his
men work Imagine the revelation from
his books that ne had reduced his mems
wages more than he had reduced the price
of the work, and that he was actually
making greater profit than usual by his
alleged philanthropy. What would the
pilgrim fathers have done for Mr.. Pull
man? Does anyone imagine that this
goodly hypocrite would have found any
one to apologize for him in his deceit. or
TO support him in his further proposition:
ct have the right to do with my own as
I Will" That, as Carroll D. Wright says.
is a moral question rather than a legal
one, and yet common law and equity have
both recognized morality as their basis,
and both have enforced the doctrine that
a man could not use his own TO the in
Jury of his nelghbors or Of the public.
The puritans never sighted the moral
aspects Of a question. They never ex-
cused hypocrisy. They
Had a hearty hatred Of oppression,
And honest words for sin of every kind.
Anyone who has studied their history
knows that the full pressure Of church and
state would have been brought upon Mr..
Pullman TO make him do justice TO his
employees. But It may be said that this is
not & question of Pullman. 1t is a ques-
ton of riot and destruction OF property
and interference with commerce. Very
good Let us look at New England riot
We have one in
Old Floyd Ireson, for his hard heart
Tarred and feathered and carried in a cart
BY the women OF Marblehead.
What had Skipper Ireson done that his
liberty should be thus assailed? Simply
used his own as he would. 1t was his
boat. He was not Obliged to rescue the
crew Of his rival. And yet in open viola
lion Of law he is dragged through the
streets OF Mlrblehead and no man lifts his
hand against it. Why? Because the peo-
PIE looked past the riot to the wrong that
caused II. The puritans did not approve
OF rioting even If the tea party did oc-
cur in Boston. Certainly not. But they
did not let the word riot" drive them
away from the questions OF right and
wrong that lay back OF IL, and they did not
1t Il drive them 10 unprecedented legal
remedies. Suppose the women OF Marble
head had been brought before cours On
e charge OF Combination in restraint Of
trade They made as much a ''pur-
,,,-os4,,rat IN The etraafs oS Daha IL rs