Enjoined from Discussing the Catholic Church
By Editor
TWO of our evangelists, Brother E. B. Hopkins and his son, are having quite a unique experience at Marshall, Texas. They went into that place with a tent to hold a series of meetings. A murder had been committed in the vicinity some time previous, and the person charged with the crime was held in jail awaiting trial. A person not connected with the brethren Hopkins, and who was not even a Seventh-day Adventist, took it upon himself to have a notice placed in the town paper urging people to attend the meetings, and making reference in this note to “the late tragedy of Marshall.” The note, without question, might leave the impression that Evangelist Hopkins was intending to discuss the crime, but he had made no mention of it in any of his meetings, and he affirms that he had no intention or thought of doing so. There was no occasion for him to bring that into his work. But the attorney for the defendant of the murder charge went before the court and asked that Mr. Hopkins be enjoined from discussing the murder trial, and also from saying anything against the Catholic Church, it being alleged that the said defendant was a member of that persuasion. The injunction was granted, and the brethren Hopkins were enjoined by the court not to speak upon those themes. Our evangelists, as they go from place to place, always present the prophecies, and Protestantism has ever held that many of these prophecies deal with the papacy, and it would be impossible to present them without speaking of the Catholic Church. But the presentation of those prophecies should in no way prejudice the case of any person, be he Catholic or what not, who was accused of a crime. As a general rule, it may be said to be wrong to discuss any case in public that is before the courts, until after the court has had an opportunity to review and act upon it. This is a recognized principle. Of course there may be instances where evidences of fraud and corruption in the court would make it necessary to discuss some cases in the open, or rather to discuss the court itself. But these cases would be the very rare exception, and not the rule. But it is a rare procedure for a court to abridge the liberty of speech by saying that any church or its doings may not be discussed. It is well for thoughtful men and women to study carefully the influences that are working in the world that could bring about such results. The district attorney, in opposing the injunction, said: “The relief sought is entirely too far-reaching for that; if the religion of the Catholic Church cannot be discussed, then by implication the religion of the Methodist, Baptist, or any other church cannot be discussed for the same reason, all prayer meetings must be suspended, and all religious service muzzled or censured.”