THE NATIONAL W. C. T. U. AND LIBERTY.
By Editor
It is with sadness we write the result. We earnestly prayed and sincerely hoped that it might have been otherwise. It is our duty, however, to put the action on record, even as we recorded its inception. Over one year ago, October 24, 1899, Mrs. S. M. I. Henry, for years national evangelist of the W. C. T. U., at the convention in Seattle, Wash., introduced the following resolution:— Resolved, That while as a Woman’s Christian Temperance Union we most earnestly teach the principle and practise of Sabbath observance, and labor for the closing of the saloons on every day of every week, yet, in order to free ourselves as an organization from a manifest inconsistency and impediment, Resolved, That our plan of work shall be so changed as to remove from its departments everything that tends to sectarian controversy, or which can in any sense be made to interfere with perfect liberty of conscience as regards the days which shall be given to worship, rest, or labor, or which can be used to give aid or comfort to any who, thru ignorance, prejudice, or malice, would enact or so enforce civil law as to interfere with the religious convictions of any and all people. Seeing there was no hope of this seemingly reasonable resolution passing, Mrs. Henry withdrew it the next day, and substituted the following:— Resolved, That as a National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union we protest against any such interpretation or use of any lines of our work as shall give aid or comfort to those who, thru ignorance, prejudice, or malice, would enact or enforce such laws as can be made to serve the purpose of persecution, or to in any manner interfere with the most perfect liberty of conscience concerning days, or the manner of their observance. Nothing could be more reasonable than this. It would seem as tho every Christian would indorse it. Yet it was strenuously opposed by members of the W. C. T. U. and by Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts. The outcome of the discussion was the adoption of the following substitution:— Resolved, That we favor the amendment of all State Sunday laws which do not contain the usual exception for those who keep the Sabbath day. In the close of the discussion Mrs. Henry gave notice that she or some one in her place would offer the following amendment to the constitution at the next annual convention:— Nothing shall ever be incorporated into any plan of N. W. C. T. U. work, by department or otherwise, which must of necessity become the occasion of sectarian controversy, or which can in any sense be made to interfere with perfect liberty of conscience. It would seem that a non-sectarian Christian organization would be in perfect harmony with that, wouldn’t it? It is impossible, we confess, for us to understand why it should not receive unanimous indorsement. It looks as tho those who opposed it felt that something of sectarian controversy must be brought in, and because its devotees are in the majority it must be forced upon the minority. All this revolves around Sunday legislation. Mrs. Henry’s proposed actions attacked no one’s view or belief concerning the Sabbath or Sunday. In its fullest scope it could only forbid Sunday legislation as a department of the national W. C. T. U., a field which lies outside of both temperance and Christianity. Mrs. Henry fondly hoped that after a year’s thought her sisters would see the beauty, the reasonableness, the Christianity of the proposed amendment. But the following is the report of the action taken December 4 by the National W. C. T. U. in Washington, D. C., as recorded in the Union Signal of the 20th ultimo:— The fourth and last amendment to be considered was that of which Mrs. S. M. I. Henry gave notice, namely, “Nothing shall ever be incorporated into any plan of work by department or otherwise which must of necessity become the occasion of sectarian controversy, or which can in any sense be made to interfere with perfect liberty of conscience.” Mrs. Stevenson, in the name of our promoted comrade, reverently moved its adoption as a separate article, and urged its passage. Mrs. Babcock, of Rhode Island, also spoke earnestly in its favor. Mrs. Cox, superintendent of Sabbath Observance, opposed it on the ground that it would open the door for a flood of discussion on sectarian lines, and referred to article 10 of the by-laws as covering the point, no individual being obliged to subscribe to any principle or plan of the National W. C. T. U. Miss Greenwood and others spoke in opposition. The previous question was moved, a rising vote called for, and the amendment was lost, 312 to 15. It will be seen that the principal opponent was Mrs. Cox, the superintendent of the Sabbath Observance Department, seeking chiefly to promote Sunday observance thru legislative enactment, and that full discussion was prevented by the previous motion. The simple fact is that if the amendment had been adopted and made operative, it would have taken away all occasion for sectarian controversy in7W. C. T. U. lines. Now the controversy must still continue; for nothing is settled until settled right. One year ago we plead with our sisters to adopt the amendment. And as we said then so we say now: “We are not making this plea in behalf of any seventh-day Christian. God will grandly care for His own, tho it be in a prison cell. The welts of a Roman scourge may be upon the back, or the bruises of Tennessee gyves upon the ankles, but angels from glory are the visitants to the Christian’s cell, and companions and ministrants to the Christian laborer in the chain-gang. So, while our hearts suffer and sympathize with these, our plea is not for them; our plea is for the noble women of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union. They are choosing between liberty and tyranny. They are putting themselves on the side of Christ, the Persuader, or Caiaphas, the coercer. Some of them may wish to change as regards the observance of the day in the future; they are endeavoring to bar their own liberty. . . . Women of the W. C. T. U., you can not for your own sakes, whatever others may do, afford to choose otherwise than for liberty, the same liberty which you demand for yourselves.” It seems that God in His goodness mercifully spared Mrs. Henry from this sad, sad disappointment. But she did her work. She uttered her protest, nobly, generously, grandly, Christianly. It then rested with the W. C. T. U. and God. But all honor to the noble fifteen. We do not know their names, at least not all. We believe that Mrs. Stevenson and Mrs. Babcock must have been two. But God knows them all, and He has recorded their action as among the noble choosings which make up eternal character, and whose influence shall be felt thru the endless ages.