Article #8 - Discussion on rejection of New Rules

            For the Association

It is here alleged that a certain rule or regulation adopted by the Association was at the following meeting hastily repealed without a sufficient reason. Feeling that from want of proper information the writer has been induced to make this assertion, I propose to state briefly the facts relative. At the meeting refer [sic] to, the proper time having arrived for transacting the buisiness [sic] created by this new regulation – in accordance with its requirements the members proceeded to select a subject and committee – after the lapse of considerable time a question on capital punishment was proposed, – to this someone remarked as that was an old subject upon which much had been said & written he would sujjest [sic] that some other be selected – as but little interest seemed to be taken in this buisiness, as was manifested by the delay; – a member,

unfriendly to this new order of buisiness and understanding they had a right to suspend it at any meeting if they should think proper – moved the question of its continuance be considered, on a motion in a vote to discontinue it a large majority was on the affirmative after sufficient time for consideration a discussion was allowed it was voted by a large majority to be discontinued. The argument in favour of the decision was this – It will be remembered at that meeting much disappointment was felt by the failure of the appointed Editoress to produce the Journal. – The reason assigned was, the want of a sufficient number of communications. Now the belief, &

Probability was – that had it not have been for this new additional buisiness  adoption of this new rule more communications would have been received by the Editor & the Journal have been

furnished. – Here then was a new order of buisiness which was thought could be continued successfully but for a short time, – believed (by the majority at least) to be less beneficial in its operations – and not so well adapted to promote the Obeject [sic] of the Asso. as the long true tested continued successful & cherished regulation of having a monthly Journal – with which it was found to conflict, – This was the argument in favour of repeal – Let all jude [sic] wither [sic] this act was too hasty time enough (seemed to me) was allowed to consider it – indeed so much

more time than has seemed necessary has always been occupied by the Lyceum in transacting such buisiness that the writers remarks might easily be taken as a burlesque upon its tardy movements – but this is not the meaning then why, but from want of knowledge are they made? Was not the argument in favour of repeal sufficient to justify the act? – it may not have been sufficient to have induced the writer to have voted for it – had he been present probably by his arguments he would have changed the decision; from want of knowledge the members may not have adopted such measures as would best have promoted their object, or such as superior knowledge & wisdom would have dictated; but if they acted in accordance with their judgement, is the charge that they acted without any good reason a just charge? In order to appreciate the force of the argument in favour of the repeal of said rule it is necessary to know the opinions of

the members in regard to what they consider to be the most efficient means for promoting their object.

The Monthly Journal of which I have spoken – a regulation introduced some 18 months scince [sic] is regarded as the best, and most efficient in its Orerations [sic--perhaps Operations?] this then the members desire to continue – hence we see the force of the argument for repealing the new measure – that it tended to defeat the successful continuance of the more permanent & useful – here to ?? why the writer could see no good reason for recinding [sic] said rule because

for some reason or other he has never been able to see the utility of the Journal as was indicated by his move at a late meeting to suspend it, – it is not strange then that he should term the act of repeal an erratic flight and think that a few more such will bring the Lyceum into disrepute

The reputation to be lost by acts of the members governed by such motives & prudence as I believe governed in that act, I feel will not be very desireable [sic] to retain. That it would not be best to substitute other buisiness in place of the Journal we do not know– but the majority of

the members believe that it would not, and should they not act in accordance with that conviction? The Author says according to the best information obtained no argument in favour of repeal was used that was not known at the time of its adoption save the novel plea that it was only tried as an experiment Where could he not have got better information? How could he have

avoided getting correctly the proceedings of that meeting and learning the opinions of the members in regard to these measures. – the novel plea of experiment had the author not been known he certainly would have been suspected for not intending to construe fairly the meaning

of the language he quoted. What was meant by the term experiment when used as refered [sic] to? It should not be necessary to explain here – I presume that most who heard it used understood

more fully its meaning than the writer appears to. It was remarked that the measure was adopted as an experiment – and when it was inquired how has it succeeded? the meaning was – has this additional amount of buisiness been required or, was there not enough without it? has it prevented some other more important buisiness from being transacted? – has it increased the interest of the members in any way – can it be successfully continued to advantage? – from these and other considerations will it if continued most efficiently advance the object of the Asso. – This is what was meant by the term experiment. Yet the Author in useing [sic] the term signifies it to mean merely, did the committee write essays and produce them to the meeting? if so he concludes the experiment had succeeded, & the rule should of course be continued – by this limited & false construction he has made the whole conduct of the members on this occasion to appear puerile, erratic, & rediculous [sic] I know not that the writer means all that he says in his

article to be applicable to this Asso. – the want of stability is imputed but only on the evidence

of a single act – and this is the only foundation for the charge – for during the whole proceedings of the Asso. since its commencement not a single rule or regulation adopted has at any time been repealed! –while many propositions to adopt new measures reccommended [sic] as having been beneficial in other similar Assos. have been rejected.

            To be read by F. Darlington