Earlier text: PRESENT TRUTHA BLOW AT THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.
By Editor
THE following is the abridgment of an article under the above title, of twelve pages, in the North American Review for December; the abridgment is from that excellent periodical, the Weekly Review, of Boston, Mass.:— We observe with regret and mortification that the indifference of the newspapers to their own and the people's rights and liberties is so extreme as to lead them to meet by a “conspiracy of silence” the powerful protest and plea of Mr. Hannis Taylor in the North American Review, with regard to censorship of the press established by the recent lottery decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Whether the significant silence of the newspapers is due to a mistaken sense of duty or to selfish motives, we are not prepared to say, but there can be no question that their policy is reprehensible and mischievous. Mr. Taylor makes out an unanswerable case, and he ought to be earnestly supported by every liberty-loving citizen. Mr. Taylor is amply justified in stating without qualification that under the Constitution of the United States, as construed by the Supreme Court in the lottery decision, Congress possesses the same censorial and despotic power over the intellectual contents of all communications, written or printed, open or under seal, which pass through the mail, that was exercised at the end of the Middle Ages under the systems which denied the right of all literature to circulate, save “such as should be first seen and allowed.” The Court held that the limitation in the First Amendment, which restrains Congress from “abridging the freedom of speech and of the press,” in nowise restrains the autocrat power of that body to look into the contents of all documents passing through the mail, and to exclude all, when the ideas which they seek to disseminate are “condemned by its judgment.” The only restriction which rests upon this newborn despotism is embodied in the proviso that Congress does not possess “the power to prevent the transportation in other ways, as merchandise, of matter which it excludes from the mails.” In other words, the Court holds that the clause of the Constitution which expressly prohibits Congress from passing any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, guarantees to the people no right whatever to disseminate their ideas through the only agency which Congress controls, provided that body does not attempt to interfere with their transportation as merchandise over routes which it does not control. The circumstances under which this judge-made proviso came into existence, says Mr. Taylor, constitute one of the most remarkable episodes in our judicial history. The plain and settled meaning of the term “freedom of speech and of the press” was at the time of the adoption of the First Amendment known to all men, even to the judges. It was understood by everybody “that the clause in question was intended to deny to Congress the power to erect in this country that kind of a political censorship which had passed away from the English Crown and Parliament a century before the American Revolution began; that it was intended to deny to the judges the right to establish that kind of a judicial censorship which Mansfield had struggled in vain to uphold; that it was intended to guarantee to every American citizen so far as the federal government was concerned, the right to speak or write what he pleased, subject only to the censorial power which resides in juries alone.” When, in 1798, the Sedition Act was passed, Congress was careful to provide that all accusations which should be made under it must be tried by juries with the power to pass, not simply upon the fact of publication, but upon the vital question involved in the subject matter of the publication itself. At a later day when Congress prohibited the circulation through the mail of immoral literature, the same constitutional guarantee was steadily kept in view. Nobody imagined that Congress might, in the very teeth of the First Amendment, assume censorial powers and withdraw from juries the right to consider the supreme question whether or not the subject matter of publication is moral or immoral, legal or illegal. But if the lottery decision be a sound one, Congress may amend the act against immoral literature by incorporating into it a black list of all the books and papers which have passed under the ban of its censorial judgment. In the lottery cases the contention was made that the power originally vested in Congress to regulate the postal system was afterwards expressly limited by the clause in the First Amendment which forbids the passage of laws abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; that the formula is an historic one, whose settled meaning is that the legislative department of government can never consider or pass upon the morality or legality of anything that may be said or written; and that the character of all utterances presents purely a judicial question belonging to juries alone. It was the first time in the history of the republic that a publisher had ever sought protection at the hands of the Court; and it was certainly to have been expected that an exposition would have been made worthy of the subject and of the occasion. But the Court deemed otherwise. In a brief statement the announcement was made that the Court held the act constitutional, because the question at issue had been adjudicated adversely in a case which arose twelve years before the rights of the press in the mail were ever assailed, a case in which its rights were neither assailed nor represented. Mr. Taylor demonstrates that no adjudication as to the freedom of the press was made, or could have been made, in the Jackson case; that what was there said on the subject was the veriest of all dictums; that in the dictum, which then first saw the light, appeared the judge-made proviso which has practically eliminated the freedom-guaranteeing clause of the Constitution by excluding it from the only field in which it was ever intended to operate; and that the only reason ever given for the proviso rests upon a mistake as to an historical fact. In 1836 President Jackson appealed to Congress to pass a law to exclude from the mail inflammatory addresses exciting slaves to insurrection. The matter was submitted to committee, and Mr. Calhoun, as chairman, reported in emphatic terms that Congress could not exclude any communication from the mail by reason of its contents. He, however, attempted to find this power in the several States, and excited the strenuous opposition of Mr. Webster, who argued that the limiting clause in the First Amendment was intended to be applied to powers which Congress possessed, not to those it did not possess, and that its plain purpose was to guarantee to newspapers the right to circulate through the mails and not outside of the mails. “The liberty of the press,” asserted Mr. Webster, “was the liberty of printing as well as the liberty of publishing, in all the ordinary modes of publication; and was not the circulation of papers through the mails an ordinary mode of publication?” In this opinion Mr. Clay concurred, and, as a result, the Senate refused to tamper with the matter at all. In referring to these opinions and arguments, the Court says: “It is evident that they were founded upon the assumption that it was competent for Congress to prohibit the transportation of newspapers and pamphlets over postal routes in any other way than by mail.” But the fact is that the only man who, in that debate, referred to the power of Congress over other ways of transportation was Mr. Calhoun, and he emphatically declared that Congress could not exercise any control over other ways than the mail. What he said was this, that if it were once conceded that Congress could exclude documents from the mail by reason of their contents, some extremist would claim next that Congress could declare all roads post roads, and then233extend the exclusion of their transportation even in that manner. The Court read an affirmative where a negative was written. The Senate debaters were not befogged by the “assumption” imputed to them. Thus we see how the judge-made proviso came into existence which declares that the First Amendment guarantees to the citizen no right whatever to send his communications through the mail, provided that Congress, after it has excluded them from the only practicable channel of circulation, does not prevent their transportation in other ways, as merchandise. Recalling Sir H. Maine’s observation, that the most irresistible device employed by judges to change the effect of positive laws without changing their form is what is known as a legal fiction, Mr. Taylor says: “The fiction set up in this matter is that the right of a citizen to have his communications transported as merchandise outside of the mail, over impracticable routes which Congress does not control, fully satisfies the terms of the First Amendment. The fact is that the power now recognized in Congress to arbitrarily deprive the citizen, without a legal trial, of the right to send his communications through the mail, the one agency which it does control, takes away the only substantial right which the First Amendment was ever intended to guarantee him.” Mr. Taylor thinks that this heresy will be repudiated by the people as soon as they realize its full significance. We hope he is not too optimistic, but fear that he is. If the price of liberty be eternal vigilance, it is tolerably manifest that the commodity in question is not within our reach; for who is hardy enough to pretend that we have paid the price? SOME WHOSOEVERS.
By Geo. B. Thompson
BY ELDER GEO. B. THOMPSON. "WHOSOEVER" is a universal term, including anybody and everybody, of every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. There are no exceptions, discriminations, or qualifications. It is all of Adam's posterity, the rich and poor, the high and low, barbarian or civilized, bond or free. With these thoughts in mind, let us note a few places in the Bible where the word occurs. 1. "And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Rev. 22:17. Do you thirst for the water of life? If so, drink freely. You can if you will, for "whosoever will" may drink if they will only take it. It is given without money and without price. The divine hand holds out to thirsty man the soul-restoring cup. It is the proffered gift of God to man, and he who drinks shall never thirst again. John 4:14. I heard the voice of Jesus say,
Behold I freely give
The living water; thirsty one,
Stoop down, and drink, and live.
I came to Jesus, and I drank
Of that life-giving stream;
My thirst was quenched, my soul revived,
And now I live in him. 2. "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 5:19. Are there any who have been breaking one of the precepts of the Decalogue, and are teaching men that such a course is right? Have any been propagating the Antinomian heresy, and teaching men that they are no longer amenable to the law of God, which Jesus came to fulfill, and which will not pass away while heaven and earth remain? Are there any who have been thus opening the floodgates of sin by bidding mankind transgress with impunity? If so, read your doom in Matt. 5:19. The "whosoever" there includes you, and the decree is inexorable unless you repent. Turn, and escape for thy life. But happy are those who "do and teach them." Great is the reward of those who keep these holy precepts, and teach others the sin of violating them. Reader, have you been doing this? Have you been exalting the law of God? If so, rejoice and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven. It is the delight of the angels to do the commandments of God. Ps. 103:20. 3. "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10. "One point" of this "whole law" is the fourth commandment, which enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath. Ex. 20:8-11. To violate this precept by devoting the day to secular pursuits is to be a law breaker. Do you reply that this precept has been changed, or abolished? How do you know? Where has God so declared? Echo asks, Where? There is no such record. "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17. The text says "whosoever," which includes you. Its scope encircles all men in all time and in all places. It is just as broad as the "whosoever" of Rev. 22:17, which is all men, Jew and Gentile, till time shall end. The Sabbath is Jehovah's memorial of creation and will never be abolished (Ps. 135:13), and those who keep it will ride at last on the high places of the earth made new, and feed on the heritage of Jacob (Isa. 58:12-14). "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." James 2:12. A PARALLEL.
By W. N. Glenn
A CORRESPONDENT of the San Francisco Leader, writing from Dixon, Cal., says:— Some time ago I said to a Catholic priest, "Father, what, in the opinion of the Catholic Church, was the mode of baptism in the days of Christ?" "Why," said he, "immersion, dipping, of course, but the church had authority to change the ordinance and did it." "We as Baptists have always claimed that the Catholic Church changed the ordinance," said I, "and we charge the Pedobaptists with getting their baptism from you, but they deny it." "Well," replied the priest, "they are very inconsistent, for they didn't get it anywhere else." And yet Pedobaptists will try to prove from the Bible that sprinkling is baptism. Now for a parallel case: In the days of Christ the seventh day was observed as the Sabbath (see Luke 23:56; 24:1). Whatever change has taken place has been by the authority of the church, or some party purporting to be the church. The Catholic Church claims the credit of making the change to the first day, and so far as any history of the change is concerned her claim is just. There is no record of any such change in the Scriptures. Catholics say, and justly say, that Protestants who deny the authority of the church to change the laws or ordinances appointed by the Lord, are very inconsistent in keeping Sunday. Or, rather, they put it this way: Protestants who keep the first-day sabbath are very inconsistent in denying the authority of the church to change or establish ordinances or festivals. Sprinkling and Sunday keeping stand on precisely the same footing. They are of the same stamp as Easter, Christmas, and the other church festivals. They all stand or fall together. It is noticeable, too, that Protestants are becoming quite lavish in the celebration of Easter, as they have long been in that of Christmas. The indulgence of one apostasy logically leads to the acceptance of others. So long as Baptists practice Sunday observance, they cannot consistently chide pedobaptists for practicing sprinkling. "If we could, through overmuch eagerness, hasten a promise before its time, it would prove hurtful to us. An unripe promise, like unripe fruit, tends not to nourishment but to disease." Trusting God Beyond Money
“THERE are people who never find out what it means to trust in God as long as they have any money in the bank.” THAT the treatment of souls is no easy or light task, but one that needs divine wisdom and untold care, is apparent when we consider that things spiritual are far more vital and momentous than things corporeal, and that it is easier to combat tangible and visible difficulties than those things which are unseen and immaterial. The disastrous effects of injudicious and bungling efforts can be seen around us plentifully, and daily souls are making shipwreck through conflicting lights that lure them onto the sand banks or rock reefs of despair, though with the avowed intention and desire of guiding them safe to the harbor. Realizing the great and important responsibility that rests upon the dealer with souls, and accepting the truth that "the fearful and often irremediable consequences of a first false step should be always present in our minds," let us honestly view the subject, asking wherein the dangers lie, and how we can best avoid or remedy them. Have you your diploma? is a question we should ask of all who step forth to this work, for in this, as in all other responsible matters, it is utterly useless to attempt work unless qualified. The man who dares to practice surgery or prescribe medicine without being thoroughly authorized and qualified for so doing, is not only liable to punishment by law, but, even if not detected and so punished, is pretty sure to make a bungle of his work, and by fatal errors prove his unfitness and ignorance. I truly believe there are many just in this relation to the great spiritual field of operation. I do not mean that they are practicing without a man-given degree, or the laying on of hands, or theological training, or correct adherence to creed and ritual. These are but minor considerations, for the great vital issue is, Are they called, commissioned, and qualified of God? If not, they can be but blind leaders of the blind. No one has a right to deliver a message unless the message is given him of God, to go on a mission unless sent by him, or to attempt work that is chosen and cut out by themselves irrespective of his will and commands. Those who have not received a baptism of his Spirit, who do not possess his heavenly seal upon their diploma, had better step back, for them to tamper and meddle with the spiritual welfare of others will only mean failure to themselves and disaster and ruin to the patients they try to help.—The Curse of Septic Soul Treatment. "RIGHT AND WRONG PUNISHMENTS."
By Mrs. C. C. Lewis
THIS is the title of a chapter in "Study of Child Nature," by Elizabeth Harrison, from which I shall quote liberally in this paper. Some people punish their children not so much to correct them as to relieve their own overwrought feelings. There are times when punishment is really necessary, but how carefully should it be administered. A child may be reproved in such a way as to stir up more rebellion and stubbornness than can be counteracted. Often, I am compelled to say, the child's indignation at the parent's treatment is just. Amos S. Cheseborough, in the March number of the New Englander and Yale Review, thus forcibly writes:— "How disastrous the mistake that Christian nurture consists mainly in commands framed in language, and prohibitions enforced by punishment! These, at the best, make up only the smallest fraction of a gospel. Usually they are sham gospel. The gospel of personal character—the gospel of the temper, of the tones of the voice, of the facial expression, of the hands, and of the bodily movements—this is the gospel which infancy can interpret. This is God's selected ordinance, and through his grace is exactly adapted to counteract the Adamic depravity, and to repair its damage, and so to train the child's faculties that they shall unfold themselves according to God's design. Before the nature of faith and love can be explained in words, the heart can take in their meaning from the life. 'He that ruleth his own spirit is greater than he that taketh a city.' And in no place in life is it more necessary that we control ourselves than in the management and discipline of our children. I know of families where, if a child must be punished, the parent first has a talk with him. He is assured of the parent's love, and of the pain it costs to inflict punishment. Then, after a few words of earnest prayer, the punishment is given. How much more salutary is such treatment as this upon a wayward child than in an excited manner, and with harsh tone, to shut him up in a dark closet, or to give him an impatient box upon the ear." It takes much time and careful thought to know just when and how much we should punish a child. There is very little intelligent studying of the effect of punishment of different kinds and of different degrees of severity upon the child's character. Instead, the nature of the punishment often depends upon the parent's whim, and its severity upon the degree of the parent's impatience. Sometimes I think children suffer more from unjust punishment than from that which they really deserve. Suppose we all keep strict watch for a few weeks, and see who is most to blame, the children or ourselves. When shall we punish? Not in haste, before we have examined the case from every side. It is so easy for us, when we are tired or nervous or hurried, and a child annoys us by some act of lawlessness or disobedience, to shut him up, or perhaps whip him. It should be made so solemn, so serious a matter that he will feel the justice of the act. It is not a good plan to punish at night. Children need good rest, and if we send them to bed with troubled feelings, they are deprived of peaceful slumber. All the sorrows of the day should be soothed, and the little wounded hearts comforted, and reassured of their parent's unchanging love. What kind of deeds should be punished? Children often have accidents. They break a goblet, tear a dress, soil a garment. Shall we punish for these?—That depends on the circumstances attending the disaster. If at the breakfast table Willie drops his glass and spills his milk, do not make him feel that he has committed an unpardonable sin. Doubtless he feels the humiliation as keenly as you do. Say as little about it at the time as possible. Show him that you sympathize with him. Treat him as you would like to be treated yourself under similar circumstances. (Have we not all had such experiences?) After the meal is over, have a little confidential chat with him. Find out how it happened. Show him how much trouble it caused you. Teach him how to guard against such an accident in the future. Thus you will save his self-respect, and will bind him closer to you. Nor will he be so apt to break another glass as if you had sent him away from the table without his breakfast. Let us be firm and faithful in our work of governing our children. Their future success or failure in life—nay, their future beyond this life—depends largely on how we train them in their youth. Children should early learn "that no sin or wrongdoing can be committed that does not bring its own punishment." This is Nature's law. If we disobey her, sooner or later we shall suffer the consequences. Can we not learn a lesson from this fact? We punish too arbitrarily. Let the child suffer the consequences of his wrongdoing, and he will soon learn the lesson. Miss Harrison says: "The more we let the deed do its own punishing, the more impersonal our own part in the affair, the sooner does the child learn the lesson. "Let me illustrate again: One morning we had a box of sticks upon the table. A restless, nervous little girl sat near it, and in a moment or two put her hand into the box; as it was near the edge of the table, I cautioned her concerning it. Soon the little hand went in again; the box tilted, slipped, and fell upon the floor, while the sticks were scattered in a hundred different directions. The child looked up in a startled manner. 'What a time our little girl will have picking her sticks up!' I said in a matter-of-course tone; 'but I think you can get through in time for the play circle. Alvin, please move your chair so that she can get the sticks which are under it.' In a moment the child was on her knees, rapidly picking up the scattered sticks without a word of objection or murmur. Had I censured her, or imposed some arbitrary punishment upon her, I should in all probability have created a spirit of rebellion, and have alienated her from me, as she was a capricious and somewhat self-willed child. As it was, she had upset the box, and as a consequence she must pick up the sticks. I have rarely ever failed in leading a child to see the justice of such commands. In fact, in a short time they usually take upon themselves the rectifying of the mistake or misdeed as best they can."—College View Enterprise. CLEAN AND UNCLEAN BEASTS.
By J. H. Waggoner
THE subject of this distinction among beasts has not been exhausted by all that has been written upon it; and as long as erroneous conclusions are so generally received and defended, no apology can be required for an effort to further extend the knowledge of the truth. 1. The distinction of clean and unclean beasts is first noticed in the Scriptures in the order to Noah to take them into the ark. As no explanation is there given, it is evident that Noah understood what was meant by this distinction. He then knew that some beasts were clean and some were unclean. 2. This distinction did not relate to what might, or might not, be eaten; it lay back of that; for no permission had then been given to eat animal food of any kind. 3. But it did divide between animals which might and might not be offered in sacrifice. Unclean beasts were not accepted as offerings to the Lord. 4. When Abraham was directed by the Lord to prepare an offering, he was told to take "an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old." Genesis 15. These three kinds of animals were the only ones that were offered in sacrifice, and the only ones among those known as "domestic" that were ever allowed to be eaten. The first offering of which we read, which was accepted of God, was of "the firstlings of his flock." Of the original word for flock here used, Gesenius says it is used only of sheep and goats. There is little said in the book of Genesis about eating flesh; but all that is said gives us to understand that only clean beasts were eaten. Nothing can be even inferred to the contrary. Noah could not eat of the unclean when he came out of the ark; there was no provision for his so doing. He was to preserve seed of all; but of the unclean he took only two, male and female. Of clean he took by sevens; and if the permission then given to eat animal food related to his circumstances, in view of the condition of the earth at that time, he could not so interpret it as to include the eating of unclean beasts, for the circumstances rendered it impossible for him to eat of them and to preserve their seed. And so of Abraham, he "fetched a calf" and dressed it for his visitors. 5. The patriarchs and their descendants did not deal in unclean beasts; they were no part of their possessions, except beasts of burden, which were comparatively little used and never eaten. It is interesting to note that the word "cattle" in Genesis is from two words, one denoting all kinds of animals, as in chapter 1: 24, 25; 8: 1; 9: 10 (also Ex. 12: 29); the other, as Gesenius says, being "strictly used only of sheep, and goats, and neat cattle excluding beasts of burden." This word is235used in Gen. 13: 2; 30: 29; 31: 9; 34: 5, 23; 46: 32, etc. The word generally rendered flock refers only to sheep and goats. That rendered herds (Ex. 10: 9) refers only to kine, or "neat cattle." If the reader will turn to the passages cited above, he will see that possessions of cattle, flocks, and herds were of kine, sheep, and goats; and the idea of a herd of swine, as we find it in the New Testament, is utterly excluded from the early records of the Bible. 6. The rules laid down in Leviticus do not appear to be new or arbitrary, or to refer only to the Jews (I mean those referring to kinds of animal food), but were based on an original distinction existing and recognized before the existence of the Jews. The facts were not created to supply the rules there given; but the rules were the recognition of facts long existing. From all this it has long appeared, to my mind, to be clearly established that this distinction had regard to the nature of the animals, and that the permission to eat animal food never extended to the eating of unclean beasts. They were not fit for food even in their best days. True science is certainly in harmony with this declaration. In this I do not mean what certain doctors may say about it; for there is nothing too unscientific or absurd for some of them to say. Who would trust the judgment of any doctor who recommends the habitual use of tobacco for numerous diseases? or of the doctor who recommended a mother to feed her child fat pork, because it was covered with scrofulous sores? (This occurred in Iowa.) The swine is the only unclean beast that is generally eaten, and I know of but one reason for their so general use, namely, they are so easily and cheaply raised. Most people now acknowledge that pork is not among the best kinds of food; its use is but a question of appetite and dollars. Yet would they examine and reason with patient candor, they would soon perceive that the appetite is best satisfied with good, clean, healthful food, and that grains and fruits are cheaper than meat. 7. No argument against the position herein taken can be drawn from Peter's vision in Acts 10, as it has no reference to this subject. Peter's interpretation of it was this: "God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." This is, he should preach to a Gentile as readily as to a Jew. But I do not believe (who does?) that Peter would have eaten a hyena, toad, or serpent, any more readily after that vision was given than he would before. Yet he would have been compelled to do so if the vision referred to eating what he saw, for therein were "all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things." But the meaning of the vision being explained by Peter himself, we must rest our judgments on that explanation. 8. Nor can any argument in favor of unclean beasts be drawn from 1 Tim. 4: 4, 5, which reads: "For every creature of God is good and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer." If this refers to animal food at all, it cannot refer to all animals, for the unclean were not sanctified, that is, set apart, for food by the word of God, but they were expressly forbidden by that word. If this truth be overlooked, then this text would as certainly bind us to eat cats, dogs, etc., as swine. "Every creature" in verse 4 is limited by verse 5. The reader may admit all this and believe with me that the eating of unclean beasts is not allowed, and yet this question may arise, Why advise against eating of clean beasts, seeing that permission was given to eat them? —J. H. Waggoner. ONE OF GOD'S LITTLE HEROES.
By Margaret J. Preston
THE patter of feet was on the stair,
As the editor turned in his sanctum chair,
And said—for weary the day had been—
"Don't let another intruder in." But scarce had he uttered the words, before
A face peered in at the half-closed door,
And a child sobbed out, "sir, mother said
I should come and tell you that Dan is dead." "And, pray, who is Dan?" The streaming eyes
Looked questioning up with a strange surprise:
"Not know him? Why, sir, all day he sold
The papers you print, through wet and cold. "The newsboys say that they could not tell
The reason his stock went off so well.
I knew. With his voice so sweet and low,
Could anyone bear to say him 'No' ?" "And the money he made, whatever it be,
He carried straight home to mother and me;
No matter about his rags, he said,
If he only kept us clothed and fed. "And he did it, sir, trudging through rain and cold,
Nor stopped till the last of his sheets was sold;
But he's dead, he's dead, and we miss him so,
And mother—she thought you might like to know." In the paper, next morning, as "leader," ran
A paragraph thus: "The newsboy, Dan,
One of God's little heroes, who
Did nobly the duty he had to do,
For mother and sister earning bread,
By patient endurance and toil, is dead."
—Margaret J. Preston, in Youth's Companion.