The Christian Sun.
•t
ATKINSON & LAWRENCE.
IN ESSENTIALS, UNITY; IN NON-ESSENTIALS, LIBERTY; IN ALL THINGS, CHARITY.
$1.50 THE YEAR
STABLISHED <°'
ELOX COLLEGE, X. C., WEDXESDAY, APRIL 2, 1992.
VOLUME LV ; XUMBEK 13
I JV
'h<* Christian SUr\
PUBLISHED WEEKLY.
He Official Organ of the Southern Chris
tian Convention.
Cardinal principles.
[l. The Lord Jesus is the only Head of the
luroh.
\ 8. The name Christian, to the exclusion
' all party and sectarian names.
8. The Holy Bible, or the Scriptures of
i Old and Mew Testaments, sufficient rule
f faith and practice.
! 4. Christian character, or vital piety, the
ly test of fellowship or membership.
6. The rlgllt of private Judgment, and
fee liberty of conscience, the privilege and
itv of all
CURRENT COMMENT.
The Annual Debate.
The annual debate at Elon
College between the two male
Dcieties has come to have
leaning and significance second
fenly to the annual commence
lents in June. Many, in fact,
ajoy the debate better than
immencement. Certain it is
lat the interest in the events
id issues of the debate is mero
itense and the speaking is
ertainly of a higher order both
tom an argumentative and ora
jrical point of view. The debate
ist Friday night—March 28,—
fas excellent and the interest
as intense and was sustained
roughout. The query was
tainly a live one and in itself
ries interest. Resolved that
labor organizations are more
beneficial than injurious.
Space here forbids even an
equate outline of the excellent
eeches delivered bv the speak
s, R. C. Cox and W. T. Walt
s of the Philologian Society for
e affirmative and H. E Roun
■ee and A. R. Eley for the neg
lve, yet because the subject is
actical and of public concern,
least a lew points from each
ay be given.
R. C. Cox, first speaker for
le affirmative, maintained that
abor organizations have raised
e laborer from a position ol
irfdom up through persecution
d discouragements to the
ane where he was able to de
and his rights and to secure
ivorabie legislation. They have
tpt thousands of families from
iplying for public assistance
d retained thousands of dol
lars in public treasuries. They
'otect the trades from the evils
low prices and botch work,
courage a higher standard of
ill, and place millions of doll
's annually in the pockets of
borers. Strikes have been
ost numerous and most disast
ius where there has been the
st organization of labor. Oaly
v/o of all strikes fail. A strike
impels more study in ec
omic wrongs than all the
ioks and essays that have ever
ien written. Labor organiza
ins foster education, uproot ig
ance, shorten hours,lengthen
>, raise wages, lower usury,
ate rights, abolish wrongs,
er the homes and make the
jrld better.
sH. E. Rountree for the nega
held that these associations
e failed in their purpose, be
se, they have lost sight of the
jentials for protection, t h e
ndard of their living.Instead of
„teripg and cultivating a solid
ilationship between labor and
ipital, they have allowed a spir
of antagonism to intervene.
This spirit oi antagonism has be
come a menance to industry,
dangerous to society and consti
tutes power that knows no limit
to its demands. Strikes are re
garded asinevitable and essent
ial and are always used as their
only weapon. The numberless
strikes, have brought about a
sacrifice of untold and inestima
ble wealth. They have set up an
aristocracy by taking away the
rights and privileges of men and
by limiting trade. They lead to
socialism. Only 6% of the
world’s laboring class are labor
union men, add statistics shoW
that this small percent has done
very little in bringing about in
dustrial reforms. They copy the
vices they profess to condemn.
When they become united and
powerful, they tyrannize their
employers of the worst sort of
oppression. By their unscrupul
ous limitations and acts of vio
lence they infringe upon and
eliminate the rights of their fel
low-man.
W. T. Walters for the affirma
tive held that if organizations
are beneficial to the laboring
classes alone, they are more ben
eficial than injurious. They in
crease morality by their restrict
ive laws. They shorten the
hoiys of a day’s work, thereby
gividg employment to more la
borers, producing better work,
and giving the laborers more
time for recreation and intellect
ual advancement. They use
their influence id passing laws
that help the laborer. They
raise wages, protect and advance
the interests of Child-hood and el
evate woman-hood. They dis
tribute prosperity, protect health,
feed the poor, secure the privi
lege of franchise, restrict immi
gration, increase the wealth of
manufacturers, and increase the
laborer’s wants by elevating him
to a higher plane of living, thu>
increasing the demand for man
ufactured products.
A. R. Eley’s plea for the neg
ative was that we are to prove
that labor organizations are
more injurious than beneficial ;
in that thev violate and obstruct
the pure laws of economics;
that of demand and supply ; that
they are injurious to the capital
ists : injurious to non-union men.
injurious to governments and
the public good : that not labor
organizations, but perfect com
petition is the ideal condition of
the working man. Secret oath
bound labor organizations will
over throw civil liberty. If they
ever did more good .than evil
it was the despotic lands of the
old world : and concluding that
all combinations of laborers to
fix wages have failed in the
end and are more injurious than
beneficial.
The Judges of the debate were
President Mclver of the . State
Normal and Industrial College,
Dr. Eben Alexander, chair of
Greek, and Dr. Raper, chair of
Economics and History, both of
University of N C. After
deliberation these judges decid
ed in favor of the affirmative.
. After the decision was render
ed the judges were called on lor
speeches, and each responded in
fitting and felicitous remarks.
G. F. Whitley was President
of the Debate and made" an
address of welcome, L. ,F. John
sou was secretary. The occa
sion was indeed a pleasant one
and the large audience present
seemed to enjoy it thor
oughly. We belive that the
debates at Elon will compare
favorably with any held at any
college in the State. There
were many visitors from a dis
tance present. It was a pleas
ant and profitable occasion and
one long to be remembered by
all presnt.
Even the Rich and the Cultured Have
Some Rights.
There are many ideas and
notions we take for granted, be
cause, if for no other reason,
they have become popular. A
poor man often takes it for grant
ed that a rich man is above him
and cares nothing about him
The ignorant often assume that
the cultured and learned dis
dain their pesence and person.
The poorly dressed assume,
without proof, that the well
dressed want to shun and ignore
them. Now, very often all this
is sheer assumption without any
foundation in fact. But it is
popular to proceed in speech,
thought and conduct on such
assumption
We have had recently, in the
newspapers of the day, an ex
ample of this assumption on a
grand scale. When Prince
Henry visited Harvard the other
day President Eliot had some
what to say about Germany and
her people, and in behalf of the
University over which he(Presi
dent Eliot) presides, conferred
the degree of L L. D on the
Prince. Immediately the storm be
gan. One contemporary, with the
spirit of all the rest said : “The
troth and slobbering of President
Eliot,and the conferring of L. L.
D. on Prince Henry by Harvard
University were in poor taste.
Now, we submit that this is said
on sheer assumption. President
Eliot has beeu at the head of
America’s frreatest universty for
more than a quarter of a century
and we never heard of his
‘froth and slobbering” before.
And we fail t> find in the vari
ous reports where he did either
on the occasion referred to. But
this time he was talking to or
about a Prince and then he is
accused of that of which he is as
a man incapable. Again, what
if Harward did confer a degree
on the Prince. She confers
some degrees every year. Will
some of our assuming contempor
aries show why a Prince should
not as well as a pauper have a
degree—if he deserves it? Mind
you,of these papers have said that
the Prince was not a scholar, a
man of learning, acquainted with
philosophy and law. The ques
tion has not even been discussed
upon its merits. We say that if
Prince Henry deserves a degree
—and we know nothing to* the
contrary—he has the right to re
ceive it and ah institution has
the right to confer it. It is a
question of merit and attainment,
not one of prince or pauper.
But this view of human
character and conduct is com
mon in this world.
You canuot always tell by the
cost of a man’s wardrobe or by
the size of his head what is in
his heart. It may be that the
cultured, the rich, the high-lived
have some real worth as well
as the ignorant, the poor and
low-lived. I have seen men as
pround of their ignorance as
others of their knowledge. And
I have seen men as haughty
and “stuck up” over their plain,
unkept clothes as others over
their costly and expensive ones.
I have seen men as bigoted over
their weather slouch hat
as others over tneir ten dolar silk
beaver. If the rich man is a
right man he deserve your re
spect and really craves your in
terest and frindship. If a Prince
deserves a degree—has learning,
scholarship, ability, attainment,
merit—he should have it with
out heaping epitl e s and appro
brium upon the institution that
confers it. We are a thousand
miles from becoming either, but
we have a sort of idea that even
the rich, the cultured, the high
lived have some rights.
The Movement Away From the Home.
A STUDY.
BY REV, M.T. MORRILL.
I submit the following outline
as perhaps helpful to Sun read
ers in considering what seems
to me a grave question. Noth
ing that is said here is assumed
as final, but is intended to be
stimulative.
The home and family are be
hind all that we call society, na
tion, government; in fact they
are the first social unit. From
a Christian standpoint it is not
hard to see why heathen and
pagan nations are so /(instable,
for it would seem that no nation
can long endure in tranquility
or prosperity, unless its homes
are preserved pure, inviolate,
felicitous, for they are the start
ing point of everything that goes
to make or unmake the nation.
Domesticity is conducive to hap
piness, and its destruction will
subtract from happiness.
I. And yet there seems to be
a movement away from the
home, until with many folks it
is now only a place for eating
and sleeping. It cannot be de
nied that many a home should
not be dignified by that name,
and it is no wonder that the in
mates do not enjoy staying
there. But what causes such a
state of affairs in those homes?
The answer will be found in
drink, gambling, idleness, inca
pacity, and other causes that
will readily occur to the mind.
But there is a movement, appar
ently, not to be accounted for in
this way ; and if a movement,
then signs and symptoms of it,
some of which may be enume
rated as follows:
l. Decay of the family, and
removal of many occupations
away from it and the home.
(a) In some sections families
are growing smaller, that is, the
number of children is steadily
less. In 1890 New Mexico,
Oklahoma, New Hampshire and
Vermont led the union in this
respect.
Old families or branches of
them are running out, becoming
extinct, for the reason just cited,
through disease and causes that
may readily occur to readers.
Possibly there is an increase
in the number of unmarried per
sons.
Certainly there has been a
large increase of hotel, board
ing, lodging, apartment and ten
ement house population. Under
this head must be noted the
cramped conditions and small
liberties and privileges even to
families domiciled in such quar
ters, which naturally drive peo
ple to parks and places of enter
tainment. To be sure, this evil
is not so observuble in country
districts and smaller cities.
There is aversion among some
classes to making and maintain
ing homes. While visiting in a
famous shoe city of New Eng
land, I had this fact called to my
notice by my host, who said, in
substance, that many of the
young women employed in the
shoe shops of that city would
nnt marrv because they did not
wish to keep house or make a
home. Undoubtedly t h £ y
thought of abridged liberties,
their own unfitness for home
making as a result of years in
shops. And again, probably the
desire to begin about where
there parents left off has caused
many to put oft" marriage until
laie in life, and perhaps too late.
(b) Because of conditions to
be named under following heads,
there is hot the sharing in pleas
uies and responsibilities attend
ant upon home and family that
would produce the best results.
(c) Social and family life is
being displaced by the club, fra
ternal orders and societies, and
associations of every descrip
tion, by which members of the
family are separated more and
more, and may even share a
larger part of their social life
with neighbors and friends than
with the family. There is more
than a grain of truth in the fol
lowing dialogue, taken from a
current periodical:
•‘John, I would like to invite
my friend, Mrs. Smalley, this
evening. Will you be able to
be in ?”
“No, my dear; I roust at
tend fhe meeting of the Ancient
Order of Forresters tonight.”
“Well, tomorrow evening.”
“I have the Royal Arcanum,
and \ ou know—”
“What about Wednesday eve
ning r”
“Oh, the Odd Fellows meet
that night: on Thursday I have
a meeting of the Knights of La
bor to attend; on Friday the
Royal Templars of Temper
ance ; on Saturday there s a spe
cial meeting of the Masonic
Lodge, and I couldn’t miss that;
and then Sunday night—let me
see—what is there on Sunday
night, my dear?”
‘•The Grand and Ancient Or
der ot Christian Fellowship.”
‘•Why, I had forgotten. Am
I a member of that? Let me
see—”
‘ But you had forgotten an
other society, John, of which
you were once a member.”
“What’s that?”
“Your wife’s.”
Since beginning the writing
of this article I have had the
point enforced by the case of a
young woman who is out every
night, half the time in discharge
ot her duties in a mercantile es
tablishment, the other half in
attendance upon meetings of va
rious societies. And she is one
who sadly needs the quiet and
rest of.home.
(d) The scenes ot recreation
and amusement have been quite
largely transferred from the
home to the park, field, street,
theatre, hall, lecture, concert,
social, soiree, and so on. Hence
parents and children are sepa
rated too much, and children
lack wholesome parental direc
tion and restraint. Chancing to
be in a gr( at manufacturing city
visiting relatives, I was asked to
go down street in the evening
to see the sights, which “sights”
consisted of thousands of peo
ple, almost the whole factory
population, promenading the
principal thoroughfares until a
late hour.
(e) The bringing up and
education of children is largely
consigned to nurses, governes
ses, and school teachers. The
child is in school at the age of
five years (sometimes just to get
him out of the way) and from
that onward until he strikes out
for himself. Parental supervis
ion is reduced, often purposely,
(Continued on 4th page.)