THE Pacific Press Publishing House is an institution established in Oakland, Cal., and is the largest one on the Pacific Coast. The Morning Times is a leading daily of the city of Oakland. The Popular Railroad Guide is a monthly publication. The owners of the Guide get their printing done on contract by the Pacific Press. The daily Morning Times advertises in the Guide. The labor unions made several attempts to get the Pacific Press Publishing House to join some of their organizations. The Pacific Press wouldn’t do it. Then the unions tried by a boycott to force it to do so, but the Press was as independent of their boycott as it was of their unions in the first place. Then they undertook to boycott those who did business with the Press. A certain Pope, not Leo XIII. but one John L., took it upon himself to command the owner of the Guide to take away from the Press the work of publishing the Guide. The owner of the Guide replied that the publishing of the Guide was offered to the principal union job office in Oakland and declined on the ground that it was unprovided with the necessary plant; then the Pacific Press was invited to bid upon the work. It did so and the bid was accepted, but the bid of the Pacific Press was not as low as the bids of other and union offices. This Pope was informed, however, that the owners of the Guide had received a bid lately from a union job office which was willing to establish the necessary plant, and that they would make the change provided the Typographical Union would bear one-half of the expense of making the change, which would be $200, the total expense being $400. This offer was promptly declined, yet flip change was insisted upon under penalty of a boycott. But the owners of the Guide would not break their contract, especially when they had no place else to get the work done. Then, as the boycott upon the Press was declared to be such as to reach all who patronize the house either directly or indirectly, and as the Morning Times advertised in the Guide, the boycotters next demanded that the Times should stop advertising in the Guide, and this under penalty of a boycott. The Times replied in the following forcible article, which we fully indorse in its every sentiment:—AMS October 16, 1889, page 297.1

“The tyranny of labor is the most oppressive that has ever been exercised by human ingenuity, when unscrupulous or ill-advised men hold the reins of power.AMS October 16, 1889, page 297.2

“The ‘boycott’ is the weapon by which the more reckless and ruthless of the labor demagogues seek to achieve objects which they know could not be attained by fair arbitration or honest argument before the jury of the people.AMS October 16, 1889, page 297.3

“Acting upon a principle derogatory to the best interests of organized labor, the Alameda County Federation of Trades has issued a circular, ‘boycotting’ not only the publication known as the Popular Railroad Guide, but against the Times and others who advertise in the pamphlet. The reason for this ‘boycott’ is because the Guide is printed at the Pacific Press, an institution which the circular says ‘is notorious for its opposition to, and oppression of labor, humiliating and degrading its hired help by every means in its power, and under the garb of religion enforcing the violation of the Sabbath and acquiring large properties from the profits they are enabled to make through the oppression and ill-pay of its employes.’AMS October 16, 1889, page 297.4

“Here is arrogance, bigotry, and demagoguery ex-pressed within the space of a few lines. By what right does the Alameda Federation of Trades, or any other organization, whether of labor or otherwise, assume to dictate the Sabbath of this nation? Whence do they derive the privilege of ordering the religious observance of any sect, in defiance of a plain provision of the Constitution of the United States, guaranteeing to every citizen the right to worship his God in any manner he may see fit. The fact that the Federation of Trades proposes to boycott the Times and other advertisers in the Popular Railroad Guide, a publication printed at a ‘boycotted’ concern known as the Pacific Press, is only secondary in impudence to this wanton attack upon a religious community, composed of citizens as privileged as the high and mighty Federation of Trades itself.AMS October 16, 1889, page 297.5

“That the Times and other advertisers are under contract with the publisher of the Guide, seems to bear no weight with the tyrants of organized labor. They ‘appeal’ that we ‘withdraw’ our advertisement. This ‘appeal,’ in the presence of the previously expressed threat to ‘enforce a boycott against all who deal with or patronize the place, whether directly or indirectly,’ is in fact a demand that we shall injure our business by lessening our opportunities of informing the public that we are printing the best newspaper, with the largest circulation, in Alameda County. The demand is absurd, and we refuse to accede to it. We claim the right as American citizens to advertise where, when, and how we see fit, even to the extent of resisting an arrogant and tyrannical ‘boycott.’ We refuse to bow down to the presence of this ‘boycott,’ because we have never yet yielded to threats or intimidation. We refuse to ‘withdraw’ our advertisement from the Popular Railroad Guide, because the ‘boycott’ is cowardly and un-American. We refuse to accede to the miscalled ‘appeal’ of the Federation of Trades, because they openly avow their opposition to the religious privileges of a sect who see fit to differ from the members of the Federation in regard to the observance of a day for the worship of their God. As well might the Federation of Trades ‘boycott’ our Jewish citizens for refusing to observe this same so-called ‘Sabbath’ for religious purposes.AMS October 16, 1889, page 297.6

“The Seventh-day Adventists, against whom this ‘boycott’ is mainly directed, are peaceable, law-abiding, honest, industrious citizens, earning a livelihood in their own way, fully within the pale of the constitution of this State and country, and they are thus fortified against organized conspiracy by men who, in thus threatening their fellow-citizens with the cowardly and tyrannical ‘boycott,’ remove their cause entirely outside the sympathy and beyond the support of any decent community where ‘patriotism and a sense of justice’ prevail. Now let the ‘boycott’ proceed.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.1

The boycott is a relic of the Inquisition, when that wicked despotism chose to curse everybody who didn’t yield to the dictation of the pope, and then to curse everybody who wouldn’t curse these. It is a proper thing that a Pope should be at the head of this thing in Oakland, because the very principle of the thing is popish. The real true popery of this act is clearly exposed in the fact that this Pope plainly stated in his letter to the owners of the Guide that he was ‘not officially instructed to write’ to them on the matter, thus showing that his action was wholly an arbitrary assumption of power. This popery is also revealed in his insisting that the owners of the Guide should take their work away from the Pacific Press, when there was no other place to take it. In other words, insisting that they should abolish their publication, stop their business; and all to conform to the arbitrary wish of these unions as expressed by this Pope. If the unions have any respect for themselves they would do well to canonize this Pope and “fire” him, and with him all the popish ways and principles that have hitherto too closely attached to trades unionism.AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.2

A. T. J.

“He Withdrew Himself” The American Sentinel 4, 38, p. 298.

ATJ

THE State Convention of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union of Minnesota was held at Duluth, September 11 and 12. The following extract from the speech of the president, Mrs. H. A. Hobart, sets forth the aims of the W. C. T. U. It can be depended on, for it was copied from her manuscript:—AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.1

“If the interest and welfare of the people and their advancement in social, civil, and religious power, with their growth, manufactories, commerce, agriculture, arts and sciences, have any place in the policy of this government, and our life nationally is not to be a farce and travesty, a sort of political comedy played for the benefit of the few hundred millionaires and monopolists, then the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union is right in standing as it does ‘with malice toward none and charity for all,’ using every item of influence which it possesses for the upbuilding of righteousness in the prohibition of the legalized liquor traffic by whatever political party has the courage and manhood to do it.AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.2

“But what political party shall thus lead for ‘God and home and humanity’? Has it been born? Has it a name? With what radiant entablature shall it come forth ramifying all parties, and uniting not only the memories of the blue and the gray in our ‘sweet dream of peace,’ but moulding all the manhood and womanhood of the North and South in marshaled force and power against the common foe of each? Whatever name such a party shall bear, or wherever it shall appear, one or two facts in reference to its advent are self-evident. This coming party, the advocate of truth and righteousness, of the equality of the sexes before the law with one code of morals for men and women, will be the child of the Prohibition party and Woman’s Christian; and its most royal, inflexible, and foremost principles of platform will be the recognition of God in the government, and the constitutional prohibition of the liquor traffic, and everything that degrades humanity.AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.3

“While we wait for the coming of such a party, what are the W.C.T.U. doing. Will they who by prayer and faith and well-directed effort made the coming of such a party a moral certainty, rest on the record of past achievement? Oh no! A thousand times no. They are praying more earnestly and instantly. They are studying God’s word more carefully. They are instructing the children in scientific temperance more diligently. They are bearing to the prisoners and to the victims of strong drink words of help and hope. They are securing these brands from the burning more tenderly, as with mother love they lead them to the crucified One. They are mastering the mysteries of State statute laws and unraveling the labyrinths of man-made penal codes.... But when the influence of the blessed gospel shall have permeated lands and climes and lives, and like the leaven which you know a woman took and hid in three measures of meal until the whole was leavened,—then when Christ shall be king of this world’s customs and commerce, king of its revenues and its resources, king of its farms and its factories, king of its mints and mines, king of its press and its politics, king of its courts, its judges, its juries, and its laws, then shall we, in our sun-bright home in the glory land, begin to have some idea of the greatness of this foundation work, this Woman’s Christian Temperance Union work to which God has called us. Then too shall we have some appreciation of the value of that unflinching determination of some men of to-day who, rising above all selfish considerations, labor, and pray, and vote for a pure political party. So by God’s grace we are doing the very work that none could do, and which angels might well desire to do.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.4

This repeats and enlarges somewhat in the matter of particulars, Miss Willard’s declaration a few years ago that “Christ shall be this world’s king.” They seem determined, just like those worldly-minded and politically-ambitious people of old, to take him by force and make him king.AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.5

These women should draw lessons now from the fact that then he withdrew himself from them (John 6:15); and the more clamorous are their efforts to make him king the further he will withdraw himself. And, too, Mrs. Hobart thinks that in this they are doing a work which angels might desire to do. It may be so but if it is so it must be “the angels which kept not their first estate.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 298.6

A. T. J.

“Queer ‘Americanship’” The American Sentinel 4, 38, p. 299.

ATJ

IN the California Prohibitionist of September 11, 1889, somebody who signs himself “Christian Citizen,” and says that he is not a Roman Catholic, indorses the assertion of the Roman Catholic Church that “our public schools are godless,” and protests, “in the name of Protestant, Christian Americanship, against the continuance of such an outrage against the home, the State, and God;” and loudly exclaims, also in the line of Roman Catholicism, “Let there be a division of the school fund.” This person, however, asks that there shall be a division of the fund into but two parts. He says:—AMS October 16, 1889, page 299.1

“Let one portion of it be used for the support of such schools as at present exist, where infidels, and scoffers, and patriots of the Harcourt stripe—may send their children if they like; and let the other portion be devoted to the support of schools in which the principles of morality and Christianity, as laid down in the Bible, shall be taught without sectarian bias.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 299.2

That is to say that the school fund should be divided into two parts, one part to be given to those who do not believe as he does, and the other part to him and those who do believe as he does. Oh yes, true patriotism never appears more glorious than when I am the patriot and I the one to be delivered from oppression! Unselfishness never appears more truly sublime than when I can unselfishly demand that half the public school fund shall be appropriated, applied, and used to support my views of religion and what religious instruction ought to be!AMS October 16, 1889, page 299.3

What this “Christian citizen” means by “patriots of the Harcourt stripe” is explained by the fact that Rev. Dr. Harcourt, of San Francisco, has been delivering a series of Sunday evening discourses, in opposition to the Roman Catholic demands for religion in the public schools or else a division of the school fund. Dr. Harcourt consistently and patriotically holds that the public school is for the public. That as the public school funds are drawn by taxation from all classes, without discrimination or preference, so they shall be applied.AMS October 16, 1889, page 299.4

It would be a real good thing if those who profess religion could recognize the fact that no man gains any additional civil right or privilege by virtue of his religious profession. If there is not virtue enough in his religion to pay him for professing it, without demanding that the civil power should pay him, then there certainly is not enough virtue in it to pay for forcing it on somebody else.AMS October 16, 1889, page 299.5

A. T. J.

“Sectarian Control” The American Sentinel 4, 38, p. 300.

ATJ

WE here present the section of the proposed constitution of the State of Washington which relates to religion in the public schools, with the discussion had upon it at its adoption by the constitutional convention:—AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.1

Section 4. All schools maintained or supported, wholly or in part, by the public funds shall be forever free from sectarian control or influence.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.2

Comegys moved to amend by adding these words: “And no religious exercise or instruction shall be permitted therein;” and argued in favor of that proposition. “Sectarian” had been decided by the courts as not prohibiting the reading of the Bible, or prayers. That was not toleration to Jews, Catholics, agnostics, Mohammedans, and several other creeds and sects, who were entitled to it as much as Protestants, and he would not believe there could be any serious objection to his amendment.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.3

Blalock thought the section was broad enough.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.4

Comegys asked if Blalock thought that the section would exclude the reading of the Bible, and prayers.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.5

Blalock thought it would.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.6

Comegys said that if the gentlemen would give him a little time he would bring him decisions from several States holding directly opposite opinions.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.7

Dyer thought this might exclude religious meetings in school-houses in several districts, but Comegys said “public schools” did not mean “public school-houses.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.8

Stiles suggested “religious” for “sectarian,” and Comegys agreed.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.9

Cosgrove thought this might exclude any teacher from employment who had any decided religious views of his own. He had a running fire of questions from Comegys until T. M. Reed raised a point of order against the colloquy, and then Cosgrove proceeded and finished his remarks.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.10

Sturdevant didn’t think this would trouble any teacher unless he wanted to teach his views. If there was doubt as to this language, and the chairman of the committee (Blalock) admitted that his committee intended to exclude the Bible and prayers in schools, why not so amend that no doubt could exist as to the meaning of the language used.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.11

Godman didn’t see how anything could exclude religious “influence.” Christianity and religion were not necessarily identical. A brainy man would have influence over his pupils anyhow. “Control” was all that the constitution could prohibit.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.12

Comegys only wanted to prohibit religious exercises in public schools, but was called to order for speaking two or three times on the question.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.13

Turner put on the brakes by moving the previous question, and it was ordered.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.14

Stiles offered to withdraw his amendment, but Power objected, and Stiles’ motion failed on a vote of 20 to 33. Absent and not voting 22.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.15

Moore moved to strike out the last two words, “or influence,” and roll-call was ordered on that, resulting in failure by ayes 11, nays 39.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.16

The section was agreed to.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.17

If the intention is to exclude religious exercises, prayers, the reading of the Bible, etc, from the public schools of the State of Washington, it is certain that this section will not accomplish that object unless the State of Washington shall be blessed with judges who have juster views of things than those have had in the States where the courts have been called upon to pass upon this question. The Supreme Courts of Maine, Massachusetts, and Iowa, and the judge of the Twelfth Circuit of the State of Wisconsin, have all held that the reading of the Bible, and prayers, could be conducted in the public schools under constitutions containing the same or like provisions with this. And the Supreme Court of Massachusetts even went so far as to sustain compulsory bowing of the head at time of prayer.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.18

Mr. Blalock was chairman of the committee that recommended this section, and as his intention clearly was to exclude all these things, it is singular that he should object to framing the section so as to say so. Mr. Comegys and Mr. Stiles were clearly right in proposing the word “religious” instead of “sectarian.” However, as “the intention of the lawgiver is the law;” and as the intention of these was that religious exercises should be excluded; if this intention shall have any weight with the courts of the State, then the schools may be kept clear of religious interference. And as section eleven of the Bill of Rights says “that no public money or property shall be appropriated for, or applied to, any religious worship, exercise, or instruction, it would seem that the public schools of the State of Washington may be kept clear of religious interference. Yet there is so much judge-made law in this country that it is not safe to trust any constitutional provision to intention. If a thing is intended it ought to be stated. The makers of the Washington constitution should have made that section to say what they intend shall be done.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.19

A. T. J.

“That Exception” The American Sentinel 4, 38, p. 300.

ATJ

IN the Christian Statesman of August 1, Rev. M. A. Gault, district secretary of the National Reform Association and of the American Sabbath Union, gave a report of work in Kansas in behalf of a National Sunday law. He said he “presented the Sabbath movement at a union service of all the Nortonville churches” June 16, then said:—AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.1

“There is a Seventh-day Baptist congregation here which exerts an unfavorable influence upon Sabbath observance.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.2

Now the petition in which Mr. Gault and the Sunday-law workers ask for a National Sunday law, proposes to exempt from its provisions those who religiously and regularly observe another day. But Seventh-day Baptists do religiously and regularly observe another day. They observe it much more religiously than nine-tenths of those who keep Sunday, and yet Mr. Gault complains that they exert an unfavorable influence upon Sabbath observance.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.3

This shows at a glance all the virtue there is in that proposed exception in the petition. It is only a ruse which is employed to attract the attention and allay the opposition of the seventh day people until the law is secured. Then it will be found at once that all observance of another day exerts an unfavorable influence upon Sabbath observance; and all such unfavorable influences will be speedily checked. For the seventh-day people to consent to any such proposed exceptions as the Sunday-law petition proposes to offer, is to put themselves into the power of the Sunday-law workers and managers. It is to surrender themselves and all their rights, civil and religious, bodily into the hands of these men. The very kind favors which these men pretend so generously to hold forth in order the more easily to obtain the power which they seek, will be considered in a far different light when they once secure the power. In the effort to secure their coveted power it is to their interest to allay as far as possible every element of opposition. There is nothing that they hate more than an open free discussion of the principles which they advocate, but when they shall have secured the power and such opposition is no longer to be feared, then any such compromise will be counted by them as only treason to their cause. We think that the seventh-day people are wide enough awake to see this, and if it should be so that any of them are not, then we pity them and confess ourselves disappointed.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.4

The truth is that the proposed exception in the National Sunday-law petition is one of its very wickedest features, and those to whom it is offered can never afford to accept it.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.5

A. T. J.

“The State and the Church” The American Sentinel 4, 38, pp. 300, 301.

ATJ

IN the Christian Statesman of August 22, 1889, Mr. John A. Dodd got off some National Reform doctrine that is worthy of notice. He says:—AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.1

“In due time he (Christ) gave his life a ransom for the eternal salvation of the individual, and for the temporal salvation of the State and the family, neither of which would have been rescued from the Adamic wreck had it not been that God had intended to make use of both in building up his spiritual kingdom, his church in the world. The life of each depends absolutely on their attitude to his church. If they do their duty, they will last like the sun; it not, they will be destroyed. ‘For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee (the church) shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted.’ The destruction of nations can be accounted for only in this light.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.2

The principal difficulty with this statement is that it is not true. It does not in any sense accord with the facts. The Roman Empire from Constantine onward was used only for the building up of the church; and in about a hundred and fifty years it was brought to such a condition of immorality and wicked pollution to be blotted out of existence, and that by hordes of utterly savage barbarians; yet savage, were morally less impure than those who composed the Church and State system which they destroyed.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.3

After the ruin of the western empire the Eastern empire remained still as the champion, the support, and the builder up of the church. Justinian was the model builder up of the church of the eastern empire. The one grand object of his life was to glorify the church and to see that everybody in the empire was orthodox. It was so with many others beside him, and yet the Mohammedans blotted out the last vestige of the Eastern Empire.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.4

Charlemagne built up an empire devoted wholly to the service of the church. He “Christianized, or wiped out,” people by the thousands in the service of the church. Thus he did his “duty” to the church and constantly expected that his empire would last like the sun, but it didn’t worth a cent.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.5

Afterward, the Holy Roman Empire, which was neither Roman nor holy, was built up to serve the church, and it did it as thoroughly as that service was ever done, in its service to the church it set itself against God in the Reformation. It too expected to last like the sun, and the church promised that it should, but it didn’t. It was not, however, only in the Reformation that the Holy Roman Empire set itself against God. Every State and every empire sets itself against God when it makes itself the champion of the church, and undertakes to build up the church; and the church sets itself against God whenever it consents to be partaker of any such offices on the part of the State. And when a State and the church thus unitedly set themselves against God, there is produced that which at the first made the mystery of iniquity, and that which ever since has been carrying out, the spirit of the mystery of iniquity. And when the United States falls into this wicked condition, the same wicked spirit will show itself, and the same wicked works will be the result, as in all the cases before it.AMS October 16, 1889, page 300.6

A. T. J.

“The Evangelical” The American Sentinel 4, 38, p. 302.

ATJ

AT the hearing before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor February 15, 1889, in behalf of the Blair resolution, to teach religion in all the schools of the nation, there were prominent men pleading for adoption of the proposed amendment, from Philadelphia, New York, and Baltimore. Rev. George K. Morris, D.D., of Philadelphia, drew the line between those who favored the amendment and those who opposed it, by the following statement:—AMS October 16, 1889, page 302.1

“I ask your attention to the fact that on this matter of the proposed constitutional amendment, the country stands divided principally along the line indicated by the evangelical church bodies on the one side, and the Roman Catholic Church on the other.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 302.2

Upon this the chairman asked,—AMS October 16, 1889, page 302.3

“In that do you count all who are Catholics on one side and all who are not Catholics on the other?”AMS October 16, 1889, page 302.4

Rev. Dr. Morris—“No, sir, we count all who are Catholics on one side and all who are of evangelical faiths on the other side.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 302.5

Then presently Senator George inquired,—“Exclusive of the Mormons, too?”AMS October 16, 1889, page 302.6

Rev. Dr. Morris—“No, not the Mormons. They would be evangelical in one sense.”AMS October 16, 1889, page 302.7

And so the Mormons have become evangelical! We don’t see, then, why the churches should make such a great complaint about the Mormons and their hierarchy so long as they can be classed with the evangelicals. But Dr. Morris says they are evangelicals in one sense. He didn’t say in which sense it is, but it is presumable that they are evangelicals because they favor the Bible and the teaching of religion in the public schools.AMS October 16, 1889, page 302.8

From Dr. Morris’ speech it is evident that those who favor the use of the Bible and the teaching of religion in the public schools, are evangelical, and all who oppose it are not. All who favor it are evangelical, even though it be; the Mormon Bible and the Mormon religion which they favor. Joseph Cook favors the Edmunds amendment rather than the Blair amendment to the Constitution. And the Edmunds amendment proposes to allow the reading of the Bible in the public schools. It would devolve upon the people in each State or Territory or school district to say what Bible should be read, and the majority, having the power to decide, would have the Bible which pleases the majority. Where the Catholics are in the majority it would be the Catholic Bible; where the Protestants are in the majority it would be the Protestant Bible; and where the Mormons are in the majority it would be the Mormon Bible. But, as the Mormons are evangelical, we suppose it is badly unorthodox to protest against any such system.AMS October 16, 1889, page 302.9

We do protest, nevertheless. We deny the right of the Protestant majority to compel the Roman Catholic minority to read, or to listen to the reading of, the Protestant Bible in the public schools. We likewise deny the right of a majority of the Catholics to compel the Protestant minority to read, or listen to the reading of, the Roman Catholic Bible in the public schools. We deny the right of the Mormon majority to compel the gentile minority to read, or listen to the reading of, the Mormon Bible in the public; schools; and we deny the right of the evangelical Protestant and Mormon majority together to compel the unevangelical Catholic and gentile minority to submit to the dictates of their unevangelical religion.AMS October 16, 1889, page 302.10

The sum of it all is, that by no right whatever can religion ever be taught, or the Bible read, in the public schools.AMS October 16, 1889, page 302.11

A. T. J.

October 9, 1889

October 23, 1889