The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1910-11-09

plan of shutting off discussion can n
succeed. Nothing succeeds so well as
unreserved truthfulness OF speech II
honesty of action. On these two things
must rest all permanent success. Inc
fact that there are things or men which
the Presbyterian would exempt from crltl-
cism forms q basis, as solid as granite,
for the belief, or the fear, JhaC
there are things about which 1T Is
thought inadvisable to take the people
into the confidence Of those who may be-
most interested. The people may be
trusted, if officers are faithful.
No amount Of muzzling the press can
silence critics who may think they have
discovered crime, cruelty, incficiencX., or
wrong conduct. If there has been mis-
takes or wrong doing it is the bounden
duty of those who are high in authority
to demand a rectiiication OF whatever may
be amiss. In like manner, no trusted
officer should rest under a damaging
criticism. He should demand that his
work and his accounts, be verified-not
covered up.
Speaking from the Presbyterian's van
tage ground, it may be assumed That that
paper knew what it was talking o
VIII en- it urged the cutting off of a criticism
that might lead to an Investigation when
investigation might uncover something
that is now covered up. But, II SO
that paper was in error in this particular.
If there be reprehensible act, let it come
to the light when it may be c~orrectedTnot
covered up. No such standing by friends
will long avail with the people. 10 STAND
by ones friends in the hour Of their peril
is ordinarily a noble attribute, and every
officer who is mot doing the work as 1t
ought to be DONE owesIthe Presbyterian
i debt of gratitude for an able defense
even before charges are made. But
how about the people? If criticism IS
to be shut off and trusted officers are TO,
do as they please, without reference to the
interest Of the people, and without fear
of exposure, what OF the result! Inc
standards Of the church and the rule OF
|conduct of a church paper it seems ought
to be as high and as correct as that OF the
civil government and the secular papers.
As long as critics may be silenced by the
disappearing stamp Of the church paper,
all those who are not doing the work as
it ought to be done," are comparatively
safe from the penalty Of their short COM
|ings. AS long as the people whose inter-
ests the paper should protect, are kept
i'm ignorance, Of existing wrong doing,
all may be we'll for q time on the
surface, but the facts, in magnified. FORM
| will leak out where ccncealment is at
tempted. ..
Suppose a critic should propose to COM
| ment %unfavorably on some act Of either OF
the boards of missions or even OF the Sy-
nod, would the church organ, which Is
owned by a private corporation and which
| newspaper is presumably published for
the dividend which it may pay to the
stockholders, dare to publish 1t? Wonld
space be given to those who would even
mention those who are mot doing the
work as it ought to be done?" Would the
paper itself make such disclosures?
Suppose a critic should seek to inquire
IL there is not favoritism in the unequal
and seemingly unjustifiable partially OF
the boards and Synod in the giving out, or
lin the distribution Of the peoples money,
would he be allowed space to discuss the
subject, or would that paper attempt to
prevent the discussion or seek to conceal
even the semblance Of suspicion that all
is not as it should be?
Suppose q critic should question the
act of Synod in levying taxes in the name
of the Lord, for church purposes, and then
suppose the members Of Synod should d.
vide out a large per cent Of that money
among themselves before going home,
would that critic be allowed space in the
alleged church paper to discuss the act?
Suppose a critic should question the act
of the foreign board in paying n hun
dred dollars a month for four months to a
missionary to career around in this coun-
ty while his assigned work is in Mexico,
would the organ give him a hearing? And
then suppose somebody should ask If the
foreign board is paying his travelling ex-
penses.
Suppose a missionary should take up
much of his time in writing a book the
sale OF which book was to be saddled upon
the people, for the personal profit of the
missionary, should that missionary be
allowed to take advantage OF the mis-
guided zeal of the members OF the church
for his personal profit
|. Suppose bosses Of the church should
charge critics with Fighting God" when
said critics protesting against misdirected
effort and a waste Of money, should such
critics not be afraid the Almighty might
strike them dead for the sacreligious ire
verence?
We believe corrupt, inefficient or unfalth-
full officers of the State always dread the
criticism Of free and honest newspapers,
and we believe that the right. kind OF Off
GERS of the State are not afraid OF the
press. They court investigation, if ques-
lions arise. Having nothing to conceal
they have nothing to fear. Are any OF our
church officers afraid Of criticism? If not
then why forestall the critic?
If honest State officials do not want a
muzzled press, why should church OIL
GERS desire or allow a muzzled pressr We
l. ~