The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1911-08-17
NEvs MA taa,>g RffYltss w
HEA. MA. NNNpkN.

II the eattacSaf ON Prohibition Mad
sunday Rest, which appeared SstGt'
day. Auxus, 18th, Mad contained tse-
er reflections and snors argument. II
might have been worQh the time. Ink
and paper wasted OF It's fabrication
ana. possibly. aiso the time spent IN
its p~erusai The lack OF argument.
however, causes no surprise, II
would be impossible TO substaatiate
the theory advanced.
The editorial states, that the
church has the right 10 vote in de-
Tense of its principles Indeed, II
the state undertook to forbid prohi-
bition and required ever. one to be-
cone a onsum of iiauor.-simi-
larry as an attempt is now being
made in the Senate to force every
one to submit to medical treatment
by the use of drugs to which many
are on principle opposed.-then any
tchurch requiring tota! abstinence of
Its members could vote in defense of
its right and principle. The trouble
is, that in reference to the prohibi-
ton movement, the above statement
is misleading. The churches clam
oring for enforced prohibition are
not voting in defense" but in the
aggressive. With the aid OF the law
and the police force they would whip
everyone into submission to their
principle of total abstinence. And
the editorial contends, that the
church has the right to bind others
by legislation to a religious princi-
pie, a principle not founded upon
natural law.
The church." it is said. has this
right as much as any other branch of
society" Let us see how much the
other branches have this right. Re-
Gently Senator John d.. Works of
california, speaking before the Sen
ate in opposition to a bill for the es-
tablishment of a national bureau Of
health, maintained, that no medical
branch had the right to invoke the
aid of the law in support of its prin-
c1ples. Such invocation he also de-
clared contrary to the United States
Constitution. And not a single Sen
ator rose to contradict the Senator
from California. Even Senator Ow-
en-, the author of the bill under con-
sideration. admitted that no medical
branch has such right. And, as the
editorial says, 1.-The church has just
as much right" that is then, 1t has
mo right" to seek governmental aid
to enforce its principles. The SEN
ators admitted that such invocation
is unconstitutional, and they sure
ly ought to know. Yet the editorial
would have us believe that there is
the American Constitution that mill
tates such invocation! 1t is signi-
ficant. that Senator Works likens
such attempt of a medical branch to
the attempts of the church to gain
governmental recognition and II
iforcement for it's doctrines and prin-
ciples.
The editorial asserts that the
Church is to determine what is the
t.er number and that al all times
the church has found it necessary to
invoke the aid of the law in promo
Ition of good" Has it?4 Christ Gid
not at his time invoke the aid of the
law to, further his teachings! Nei-
ther Gid the apostles rSthe apostolic.
church do 80. The early Puritan
Church in America did. They de-
termined what they considered the
highest right and good for the COM
munity and resorted to police force
to enforce it. They invoked the aid
of the law to force submission to
their principles and to control or
punish, to torture in many ways, to
place in the pillory. the stocks, the
, ducking-stool ETC., anyone who re-
fused to accept their doctrines and
principles. Was it right? Can any
one, who understands our Constitu-
don, deliberately maintain that
there is nothing in the American
Constitution that initiates against
such invocation?" Thank God: tho
days are past when the church con-
''trolled the laws and the state!
The editorial overlooks a very i'm
portant event of church history in
this connection. 1t contends that it
is the duty of the civil magistrates
to enforce observance of Gods law.
particularly a s regards the use of
liquor and sabbath observance. In
the year 1887, however, the same
year in which our Constitution was
drafted in Philadelphia, the Ameri-
can Presbyterians net in the same
city and revised the Westminster
confession of Faith of 1647, re-
writing cp. 1883 and emitting the
statement, that 1.-The magistrate hath
the duty to take order that the or
dinances of God be duly observed"
They saw that this statement was in
comhict with the Constitution. And
very recently the Presbyterian
Church in Canada most %emphatical-
ly protested against the admission
of the claim Of the church to have
the right to call upon the judiciary
of the Province to give civil effect to
its ecclesiastical deliverances." De-
nying this right to others. would it
claim 1t for itself?
The grand TRADE gainst the saloon
was not called by u previous arti-
Gle. We did not defend the saloon.
Our only reference to the saloon
stated. that If a Christian were con-
WINGED, that the regulatedl saloon
tended to preserve better peace and
order than prohibition, he might vote
in the saloon. Should he vote dry if
that created more lawlessneess? We
did not lug in by the ears the ar