The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-10-09
INCONSISTENT DIFFERENCES.

When a religious journal which has, or is supposed to have. for its object the discussion of religious questions and the dissemination of religious in- formation, takes up a subject even in- directly connected with the politics of the country there is always at least the possibility of blunder. As an ex- ample of this danger The New Bed- ford Standard quotes from a contem- porary which 1t designates "a relig- ious newspaper of high standing and usually careful thought" the follow ing paragraph:
 Some day 1t will be nsidered in- famous for any lobby ex pert, repre- sentative. or Senator In Congress to press for bill which shall confer special privileges upon industry of one kind Or individuals of one class"
 That, as all must admit, is a plain denunciation of anything in the na- ture of lobbying. and also of mem bers of either house of Congress who use their efforts and influence to pro- mote Legislation which may benefit one industry or one class of individ- uals. The language used will strike most fair-minded readers as a proper criticism against all forms of legisla- tion-and those who are behind it. which might have even the semblance of corruption. and yet. from the same the paper The Standard copies this:
 Every patriotic citizen ought to de- gress that steps shall be taken inn mediately to create a merchant ma rine. whether by purchase of ships abroad, by releasing materials used in ship-building from import duty, or by subsidies"
 Any one reading these two extracts which we may call simultaneous, will see their inconsistency. but that is not all; for there are many of the best and wisest citizens of the coun- try who not only look on the shir subsidy proposition as wrong in the. ory but hold that 1t would encourage and strengthen almost unlimited cor ruption in practice. It would plainly be not only Iegislating for certain class. but would be giving the public money to fill the pockets of specia interests and to build up for them. selves a monopoly. In short the las paragraph quoted Is not only a plair contradiction of the first, but sound, to us like an equally plain argumen In favor of what had just been de. nouRced. It shows that when relig- ious newspapers, writers or speak CT. depart from their legitimate sphere and enter into the advocacy of a DO. litical or semi-political cause they arc apt to see but one side of the aues. ton and may become not only Incon. sistent but intolerant and unjust Ant on this subject. and as to others oi similar nature. The Standard says:
 On the one hand. there are those Nho unhesitatingly pronounce every subsidy scheme as infamous" On the other. we find those who regard the subsidy plan not merely as expedi- ent but as a pratseworthy means of promoting the general welfare. While believing the subsidy idea mistaken. it is easy enough for us to See that different men may hold radically diff ferent views on the subject and stlll be honest. So the issue has got to be argued out, and perhaps tried out. And those good people who insist that the churches and everybody else must be ranged on their side or be anathema in this case and in many other cases. may as well reflect that snapshot decisions concerning what is moral and what is immoral are not always to be trusted.
 The concluding portions of this ex- t-act will remind every Alabama reader of what is going on among us at the present time when ministers from the pulpit severely eriticis' those who disagree with them on a certain subject that Is now stir ring the entire state. and ir effect. if not always @ exact