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.)

Page Text

This is the computer-generated OCR text representation of this newspaper page. It may be empty, if no text could be automatically recognized. This data is also available in Plain Text and XML formats.

Return to page view