The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-12-22

; ago something about the Ill treatment
of the negroes in the South, their scanty
wages, and the fear that blood would
run in the streets and the torch be APP
piled to the white mans home for this.
ANY Southern man knows how dangerous
such an allusion is to the race that IS
living among us. The News and Obser,
yer characterized it as an incendlary 1T
terance In effect, though we are ready
to believe. not in purpose, 1t was. Then
Mr.. Massee distinguished himself in Char
lotte the other day.
Now we hold that if a minister is dis
cussing the doctrines or worship or rites
of his denomination, or OF Christianity
itself, any adverse comment by secular
paper is an impertinence. Moreover it is
an impertinence that will be promptly
rebuked by the withdrawal of the sub
scrbers of that denomination. secl
lar newspaper has nothing to do with
matters that are purely UNCONVENTIONAL.
But it is not Methodist doctrine, what
Professor Bassett said. Nor is it Bap-
fist doctrine, what Mr.. Massee said. II.
fact Dr. Battle very promptly and con-
clusively showed that it was subversive
of fundamental Baptist doctrine. And if
ment upon a public speech advocating
the humiliation of the rights of the secu-
lar press in the name of common sense.
what has a secular paper the right to
comment upon?
Mr.. Bailey refers to DR.. Durham's cam
paign for Christian Education. We con
fess our ignorance of the features or that
cam.aign. But we know that at one
time Mr.. Bailey's plan Oh Christian Edu-
cation included something which he has
since given up, namely, that the State
should not be allowed to appropriate any
thing to the State institutions, the UNI
versty, the State Normal, the a. and M.
We recall, also that when the Baptist
Convention met in Charlotte before with
some half-formed plans OF carrying that
policy into effect, it was met with a
broadside from the Charlotte Observer,
for which the Charlotte Observer received
the castigation of the Biblical Recorder,
but for which we hope 1T has not re
pented. Because that was clearly po-
litical question with nothing that con-
cerned religious denomination as such.
We would be the last to limit the
freedom of a religious paper to discuss
a political question or any other question
if it seems best to the editor. 1t should
eschew partisan politics. But in the poll
teal sphere it should learn to take as
well as give The religious paper can
point out the errors in doctrine or prac-
tice of it's own or of other denominations,
as the secular paper cannot do. Nor
would we limit the freedom of professors
and ministers to discuss what they think
best from the pulpit or by other modes
of expression Those things belong TO
the domain of taste. But when they do
leave questions of religion in sermons or
leave questions of religion in sermons in
addresses, their utterances become
public property, they must expect crlti-
csm of these things on their merits
and not say that an attack has been made
upon their churches because criticism has
been made of their own foolish views
Criticism is the saving salt of literature
and Of utterance. There would be many
more foolish things said and written but
for the function of criticism. And if that
function is denied, what becomes OF all
that freedom of speech and freedom OF
thought that we were hearing SO much
about just now, from the professor and
the editor and the minister aforesaid?
Some mighty fine things were said about
the ''illimitable freedom of the human
mind" Have they been forgot so soon?
Or does it belong only to those who talk
about it the most?