By the second resolution the question of mixed or separate schools was declared: (1) “One of expediency, to be left to the choice and administration of those on the ground, and more immediately concerned.” That which is expedient, Webster declares “a means to an end.” Was it so intended in that resolution? “Those on the ground and more immediately concerned” were undoubtedly the trustees, teachers, and patrons of the schools among the whites in our Church. (2) “_Provided_, there shall be no interference with the rights set forth in this—the foregoing—preamble and these resolutions.” The preamble declared: “(1) Equal rights to the best facilities for intellectual and spiritual culture, equal rights in the eligibility to every position of honor and trust, and equal rights in the exercise of a free and unconstrained choice in all social relations as a principle at once American, Methodistic, and Scriptural.” Now let us put _this_ and _that_ together; who is to decide what are “the best facilities for intellectual and spiritual culture?” According to the principle of expediency—“the means to an end”—undoubtedly it must be decided by “those on the ground and more immediately concerned.” Now, the question as to whether the contributors—the majority of the most liberal contributors—are “more immediately concerned,” we do not stop to say. Having completed the addition, what do we find as a rational conclusion? What are we to understand by “the exercise of a free and _unconstrained_ choice in all social relations?” Webster says: “The word constrain comes from the Latin _constringere_. This is composed of _con_ and _stringere_, to draw tight, to strain; a strong, binding force; to hold back by force.” The word used is _un_constrained. I suppose we can conclude it means without constraint. The question naturally arises, Had there been any _constraint_ in our work in the South? If so, at what point? Touching what phase of the work? Whatever constraint the work in the South has been laboring under, the Church was responsible for it. Was it that “race, color, nor previous condition” should be a bar to the full and equal rights of its members in Church, school, or office? There must have been some _constraint_, or the word “unconstrained” is meaningless, as used. But whatever constrained choice existed previously, it was so intended, and that resolution did abrogate, if it has any force at all. What did “those on the ground and more immediately concerned” understand it to mean? Rather, what naturally grew out of it? THE CHATTANOOGA EPISODE.