The new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1876-1904, 1897-03-27
swords Crossed.

LAUREL POINT, March 20.-It has beer
said Thoughts shut up want air and
spoil like bales unopened to the sum-
so we deem 1t may be some interest tc
the readers OF your valuable paper t.
give short synopsis OF a very sociable
event that occurred at the zoar Baptist
Church, Saturday, March 9th, 1897.
| The feature of the occasion was that
OF debate, pre-arranged by two OF our
distinguished fellow citizens agreeing Ia
clash swords because disagreeing upon
the question, "Who is my neighbor Pr
This in the minds of many is broad
and deep question, and one in which
many differ. And because that two able
debaters were contestants, 1t was fur
thermore interesting to all who heard
the discussion.
The question was stated thus; Re-
Resolved, That every man is not my
Neighbor. l.. w. Conway was the al
| 6rmative speaker and j. S. Tough the
negative. Five judges were chosen TO
render decision.
The Judges chosen were Messrr. Mar
shall Scott, Marshal Tough, Thomas
| Thorn, Patton Fox and Eliza Barb. The
contestants each spoke 80 minutes. Mr..
| Conway, the affirmative speaker began
his argume' by first giving the defini-
ton OF the word neighbor He referred
TO Webster, Worcester and to the Bible
quoting different passages Of scripture in
substantiating his theory.
| He gave the parable Of the good Sa-
marian and dwet at length upon Its
Teaching, claiming that it is a demon
stration that all men are not neighbors,
that the priest and Levite who passed
around the wounded man we're evident
ly not neigbbors unto him, as manifest
ed by their actions, that the command
OF Christ to the lawyer TO go thou and
do likewise" was a command that all do
not obey. Mans doing good act is
sometimes returned by vile and under
mining deeds, though your being neigh
Dor unto them does not make them
neighbor unto you, that the question is
that every man is not my neighbor, and
not whom am neighbor to. He also
referred to many other passages Of
scripture.
Nj. Tough then replied 10 him begin
ming his reply by saying that he had the
greatest respect for his opponent and
would endeavor not to treat him other
wise in the discussion. He also began
by giving the definition Of the word
neighbor according to Webster. His idea
Of the parable of the good Samaritan
differed extremely from that Of his OPP
ponent. He claimed that if God being
the father OF all mankind, men are then
created brothers, and il brothers, then
they are neighbors, that Christs COM
mand to the lawyer was for all future
generations to follow the teachings of
the good Samaritan and that the ques-
ton cannot be changed otherwise, that
mans actions be they good or bad do
not effect neighborship. He gave many
other passages substantiating his ar
gument, notably Romans IL 20 and Matt.
49,: Fl and %.
The decision OF the judges was unani
nous in favor OF the affirmative,
AS above stated many differ upon this
question and the discussion consequent
ly not change the belief OF many pres
ent and not present. However we be-
lieve some good results can be and are
deserved from such meetings. They
Enthusiastically are incentives in causing
many to think and investigate, to awak-
en- from the lethargy and dreamy state
to important questions.
The iglory of the deed is not in its
dreaming,
And not in its fancy howsoever fair,
The glory of deed is its doing
And each doing makes the deed more
rare.