SUNDAY evening, May 19, the Kings County Sunday Association held its seventh anniversary in Hanson Place M. E. Church, Brooklyn, New York. There were several addresses made, one by Mr. Elliott F. Shepard, president of the National Sunday Union. The annual report of the association, and Mr. Shepard’s speech, are given in the Pearl of Days column of the New York Mail and Express, of May 24, 1889. The speeches furnish some very interesting matter, which we shall have occasion to notice at different times in the columns of the SENTINEL. One of the points is contained in the statement by the secretary of the Kings County Association, that in Queens County “Sunday is a day of deviltry.” How can Sunday ever be anything else than a day of deviltry to those who are not religious, so long as they are compelled to be idle on that day? Satan finds something for idle hands to do, and when men are forced to be idle, they are going to fill up the time some way; and as they have not that regard for religion which will lead them to fill up the time with worship and devotional thought or exercises, it is inevitable that the time will be filled with worldly things; and as the law will not allow them to work, nor to play harmless games, even though they be worldly, no result can follow but that the time will be filled with deviltry, because by this system they are thrown back upon themselves for resources with which to fill the time, and from himself no ungodly roan can ever get anything but ungodliness, and ungodliness is deviltry. But this association, and the Sunday-law workers everywhere, propose to cure the deviltry by more stringent laws for the enforcement of idleness out of which the deviltry comes.AMS July 3, 1889, page 178.1

Another statement in the same live was made, that “drunkenness and public disorder are altogether too common on Sunday.” This is entirely true, and for the reason, as stated above, that on Sunday people are compelled to be idle. They are not allowed to work, they are not allowed to play, consequently drunkenness and public disorder are the only outcome from those who have not the disposition to worship and make the day one of devotion. Then in the next sentence the association innocently inquires, “If open saloons and the Sunday liquor traffic do not cause them [drunkenness and public disorder] what do?” Well, that open saloons and the Sunday liquor traffic do not cause them is certain, because there are open saloons and liquor traffic in full blast all the other days of the week, more than on Sunday, if there is any difference; and yet there is more drunkenness and public disorder on Sunday than on any other day of the week. These are facts admitted by Sunday-law workers themselves. Therefore, the increased amount of drunkenness and disorder on Sunday is not because of the open saloons, but because of the idleness. To put it somewhat in the form of a syllogism, it would be about as follows: More saloons are open every other day of the week, when men are allowed to work, than on Sunday. There is more drunkenness on Sunday, when men are compelled to be idle, than on any other day of the week. Therefore, the increased amount of drunkenness and disorder on Sunday is due to the fact that more people are idle on that day than on any other.AMS July 3, 1889, page 178.2

The Sunday-law makers can never escape this logical conclusion from their own premises. They propose to escape it by shutting the saloons altogether on Sunday; but that will not help the matter a particle, because those who want to drink will buy their whisky Saturday night and drink it on Sunday. There is another piece of unfairness that comes in right here, illustrated by an actual occurrence. In a certain town where the saloons were shut on Sunday only, a woman whose husband was given to drink stated that her lot was actually worse than when the saloons were open on Sunday; for when the saloon was open on Sunday he would get drunk at the saloon, and the saloon keeper and his other companions had to care for him till he got sober; but when the saloons were closed on Sunday, then he would bring the whisky home on Saturday night, get drunk on Sunday, and she had to take care of him till he got sober. This point is worth considering by the would-be Sunday prohibitionists.AMS July 3, 1889, page 178.3

Others again propose to cure the evil by a Saturday half holiday; that is, by enforcing idleness an extra half day. Is this so as to give those who drink ample time to get drunk and sober up in time for their Sunday worship? The whole system of Sunday laws, that is, of enforced idleness, is only one of iniquity.AMS July 3, 1889, page 178.4

A. T. J.

“The ‘Voice’ of Church and State” The American Sentinel 4, 23, p. 179.

ATJ

NOT long since the AMERICAN SENTINEL said this: “Let everybody be assured that work done for party prohibition is work done to promote the union of Church and State, and to bind the citizens of the United States in a worse slavery than was ever suffered by the negroes. We cannot any longer in good conscience call the third party the Prohibition party, for temperance is by no means its main issue.”AMS July 3, 1889, page 179.1

Upon which the New York Voice, the leading Prohibitionist paper of this country, said this:—AMS July 3, 1889, page 179.2

“There is an air of delightful indefiniteness about this charge. It seems from the context that an unknown ‘Prohibition politician’ glided into a room where the editor of the AMERICAN SENTINEL and others were, made the statement that Church and State meant Prohibition, and left as mysteriously as he entered, and the conclusion is what we have quoted above.AMS July 3, 1889, page 179.3

“Such accusations are childish. The utterances of the party in its platform in any way bearing on this subject are:—AMS July 3, 1889, page 179.4

“1. Acknowledging Almighty God as the source of all power in Government; and,AMS July 3, 1889, page 179.5

“2. ‘Declaring for the preservation and defense of the Sabbath as a civil institution, without oppressing any who religiously observe the same on any other than the first day of the week.’AMS July 3, 1889, page 179.6

“The first can be subscribed to by any person who believes that there is a God, and the second by any person who has ordinary common sense. We never heard of a prominent Prohibitionist who favored the union of Church and State.”AMS July 3, 1889, page 179.7

And in reply we say this: Take the last statement first. The Voice says it has “never heard of a prominent Prohibitionist who favored the union of Church and State.” Now Mr. Sam Small is a prominent Prohibitionist; one of the most prominent of Prohibitionists, in fact. He was secretary of the National Prohibition Convention of 1888, and he publicly declared this in Kansas City, in January of that year:—AMS July 3, 1889, page 179.8

“I want to see the day come when the church shall be the arbiter of all legislation, State, national, and municipal; when the great churches of the country can come together harmoniously and issue their edict, and the legislative powers will respect it and enact it into laws.”AMS July 3, 1889, page 179.9

If that would not be a union of Church and State will the Voice please tell us what would be? If that would not be a union of Church and State then there never has been and never can be such thing as a union of Church and State. Such a thing as that, therefore, being a union of Church and State, and Mr. Sam Small being a prominent Prohibitionist, it is proved that there is at least one prominent Prohibitionist who favors a union of Church and State.AMS July 3, 1889, page 179.10

Further we take it that the Prohibition party of the State of California is rather a “prominent Prohibitionist.” And when in the State convention of 1887 a speaker showed opposition to a union of Church and State he was yelled and hissed down. This is a second “prominent Prohibitionist” that favors a union of Church and State. And we can honestly inform the Voice that there are thousands more of them in the Prohibition party; and that, as a matter of fact, the Prohibition party at present exists for scarcely any other purpose than the inculcation of Church and State principles.AMS July 3, 1889, page 179.11

We need not go beyond the above extract from the Voice to prove that it itself advocates Church and State principles. It gives two planks of the Prohibition party platform as having a bearing on the subject; and the second of these declares “for the preservation and defense of the Sabbath as a civil institution without oppressing any who religiously observe the same on any other than the first day of the week.”AMS July 3, 1889, page 179.12

Now if it is with civil institutions, and civil things, only in a civil way, that the Prohibition party has to do, why then does that party by its national declaration demand the religious observance of a day. It proposes to refrain from oppressing only those who religiously observe the Sabbath on any other than the first day of the week. That plainly argues that the Prohibition party does not hold itself under obligation to refrain from oppressing those who do not religiously observe the Sabbath on any day. This plainly shows that the Prohibition party declares for the enforcement of religious observances. The enforcing of religious observances by the civil power is nothing else than a union of Church and State. Therefore the National Prohibition party itself, by its own declaration, favors a union of Church and State.AMS July 3, 1889, page 179.13

As for us, we forever deny the right of the Prohibition party, or any other, to oppress anybody, whether he religiously observes the Sabbath or not.AMS July 3, 1889, page 179.14

A. T. J.

June 19, 1889

July 10, 1889