And if they be different, as essentially they are, there must be some strong justification for the adoption of the latter.
But before proceeding to this enquiry, it may not be amiss to point out the exact distinction between the original and the new resolution.

The former embraced a rule of action whereby the members of the Association engaged their faith and honour to each other and the country that they would not use its agency to cause or promote physical force or violence of any kind, or commit one another to any act of illegality.

But it went no farther--it enunciated no moral dogma--a rule of conscience rather than a pledge of conduct such as the other--and it claimed no sacrifice of one's own convictions.

As a mutual guarantee, it was not only just but essential to the perfect safety of the Association.
On the other hand, the new resolution excluded the question of practical action altogether.

Neither in itself nor in its preamble was there an averment, or even an assumption of its necessity, as a rule of guidance.
It was a mere abstract opinion, utterly irrespective of the object or conduct of the Association, and only applicable as a test of certain speculative theories.