The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1901-10-12
DR.. PARKS OPENS DISCUSSION.

DR.. PARKS OPENS DISCUSSION.
Rev. DR.. Parks Of New York was the first
speaker to be recognized. In part he said:
vention should know what they are doing
They agree with me. They are in danger of
being befogged by certain statements being
made on this platform. What we are engaged
in is an endeavor to raise the standard of mo-
rality by setting up a better standard of mar
riage.
You cannot convince the public of America
that there are not certain people who should
not marry after divorce. You may yourselves
believe this-that is your privilege, but the
great body of America will never believe that
by the law of Christ they cannot remarry
after divorce. That being the case, is your
legislation eXpedent? 1t will be eXpedient II
you can command the Christian conscience Of
those in America-not public opinion. l care
little about that, but Christian conscience-and
Now, there are two sorts of conscience in
the world as / understand it-both very valu-
able, both very different. One is the conscience
refined and scrupulous and devout. The con-
science that Ultimately leayens the world and
sets the standard of morals. VIII that con-
science agree with you, will it support you If
you are rigorous? l tell you nay. All men
know the life of the soul. Knowing this, as
men and women grow older they grow more
rigorous toward self and more infinitely COM
This is the question of all questions in the
world. 1 am told that there are numbers of
gentlemen who know all about this question.
tiers that can come up before the convention
this is one that touches the human heart Here
y,
pity, here comes compassion
Deputy Charles Andrews of Western New
York next claimed the attention of the house
For me it is sufficient that the unbroken
practice of this church from the commence
ment has permitted remarriage to the innocent
party to a divorce on the ground of adultery,
and that by the common consent of all civ
ilized legislatures and rulers it has been al
lowed 1t comes. in my judgment, to the
question of the expediency of this proposed
legislation. In my Judgment the statistics of
n -V-hi hora MT
pertinent to the discussion until it has been
shown that large number of the divorces
the ground of adultery. I believe that nine
tenths of the divorces in the United States pro-
coed upon grounds not scriptural other than
adultery. This is a question of eXpediency. 1
admit that great principle of law which
bordlnates the interests or the Few and permits
restraint TO some extent upon personal liberty
in the interest of matrimony This is the first
attempted legislation which I have ever known
which undertakes TO subordinate the rights and
interests of the many for the reason that they
may be opposed by the few. Are to permit
that legislation which denies to the innocent
party entitled to a divorce the ground of
adultery? Are we to deny to this large class
of people who admit scripturaI right to
remarry simply to prevent abuses which now
iIdgments Of the coirts? In mV i1dpme eI
we are not so justified and no question of
eXpediency can authorize an ecclesiastical
council to interpose an obstacle to the ad-
ministratiSn OF matrIimony by the ministers of
Rev. DR.. Thomas of South Carolina followed
ana Iold the convention Indt ne was the proud
descendant of the first missionary sent out
to convert the Indians in his State. In part
he said:
There is one point involved. and that is
whether the principle of this church shall be
the indssolubiity of the marriage relation
We come here not to legisate; that is for the
State-for the civil government. We come here
to say what shall be the policy of the church
We come here to learn whether the policy of
the church is to preserve the purity of woman
1t is for US to say whether the white banner
of the church shall be unfurled in the cause
of purity whether It shall be dehled with
the sophistries of the age"
OPPOSES PROPOSED CANON.
Deputy George H. Williams of Oregon op-