But a little later on creeps out an indication, in the light of which we have a right to interpret this claim. Mr. Flower, in his editorial, had shown how a Christian Scientist had been arrested in Iowa for this offence. In the words of the indictment, "She had practised _a cure_ on one Mrs. George B. Freeman." After the physicians had pronounced the case hopeless, and had given her up, this criminal woman had actually dared to "cure" her. The heinousness of the offence was admitted. It was not, in the ordinary sense, malpractice; no medicine had been given, no pain was inflicted, no harm done. But she had been presumptuous enough to "cure," and not after the "regular," the orthodox way. Now the Rev. Francis Bellamy shows his "tolerance" in regard to this crucial case, by saying, "But it is certainly true that the State has the right to prevent malpractice--a right none of us would wish renounced." Just what this has to do with an instance where the _only_ malpractice even charged was that she "had practised a cure," after all the physicians had given her up, is not very plain to the worldly minded. But he goes on,--"And as soon as there are sufficient data to convince an intelligent (_sic_) public opinion that the theory, with its perilous repudiation of all medical skill, is not fatal to human life, it will receive an ungrudged status."
"Here's richness," as Mr. Squeers would say. Mr. Bellamy's "tolerance" then is limited carefully to what has an accepted "status" as judged by "public opinion." It begins now to be plain as to what "tolerance" is to be in the millennial era of nationalism.
But there is one more hint in Mr. Bellamy's article, without which this new and improved definition of tolerance would not be complete. He says, "It is hard to discover what individualism is surrendered _except_ bumptiousness." But who is to decide what is "bumptiousness"? Why, "an intelligent public opinion," of course. And who is to settle as to what is "an intelligent public opinion," that has the right to put down "bumptiousness"? Why, the "intelligent" public, of course. So it comes back always to this,--we, the ruling majority, are intelligent, and we have the right to decide as to what shall be and shall not be permitted.