The record-union., 1897-06-13
OF WORSHIPFUL NUISANCES.

OF WORSHIPFUL NUISANCES.
A court and jury in New York de-
clared that Booth-Tucker's Salvation
Army methods constituted nuisance
so far as noise-making goes. This has
brought forward into press debate
again the whole subject Of personal lib
erty. Booth-Tucker holds that it is
his right to worship God according to
the dictates of his own conscience, and
one of the dictates is that he shall
make a noise in the street on drums
and trumpets, and with gongs and Gym
balls, and shouts and songs.
But there is another fellow who
claims the right Of individual liberty
also. He wants to sleep, or rest, or
work, or pray, and fuckers
racket interferes with him and inter
rupts him in what he is lawfully about
AS this is not necessary interruption
and interference, he invokes the law
against Booth-Tucker successfully.
Here then is the old question up
again, how far will the personal---very.
claim shield one from interference. OBJ
viously the answer is, just up to and
not over the bounds of another's right
not to be trespassed upon, and up to
and not over the line set by society in
its ordinances.
How then about the church bell? Is
it necessary? Is it not trespass
upon the rights of others by those
who ring it? Unquestionably. AS
Mr.. Booth-Tucker has the indisputable
right to worship with noise and drums,
where he does not interfere with the
right of another to peace and quiet;
so the ringers of church bells to be
blameless should cart their bells away
where they will not be heard. Or
they should so ring them that only
those will hear their tones whose right
to peace and quiet is not asserted
against them.
The rule is that every man in this
country is entitled to the exercise of
every and any liberty that does not in
fringe upon the liberty of some other
man. When a church bell bangs out
at an hour when sensible people are
still in bed, simply to inform one class
of worshipers that it is time in the
cold dark gray of unborn sunrise to
come to prayers, it is just as much a
nuisance as Mr.. Booth-Tucker's tam
BORNE and drum at half-past ten at
night and a good deal more so. Bells
are not essentials to liberty of wor-
ship. They are reminders of a time
when the clock was not, and ignorant
people had to be informed of high noon,
and sunset, by ringing of great pieces
of cast metal.
1t is within the individual liberty of
the citizen to drink and get drunk on
any day in the week. But it is not
guaranteed him that he may roar in
his drunkenness upon the highway, be-
cause he makes a nuisance of himself
and trespasses upon the rights of 9TH
ers to have things orderly and decent
on the street. On precisely the same
ground stand the Salvation Army man
and the bell ringer, and a good many
others. There is very large class of
nuisances that fall within the category
and which should be abated, and would
be but for the fact that the people
suffer and put up with them.
Would we be understood then as
CHASING the street methods of the Sal
walton Army as unlawful. and would
we favor their suppression? Yes and
no. The methods are of character that
may and often do constitute a nui-
sance. But so long as one feels that
they do not trespass upon his liberty,
destroy or interrupt his peace andquiet.
and disturb his rest in reasonable rest
hours. we would not have the law
pushed against the Salvationists as
was done in New York City. So long
as the ringing of the church bell, a
non-essential to religious beliefs not
complained of as a trespass upon the
individual liberty of a citizen. it does
no harm; but it remains that it is not
q necessity. and that it rings because