NOT long since the World mentioned the appeal of the United States Court. “The appeal being taken,” says the World, “upon the plea that such a statute is an infringement of the Fourteenth Amendment in that it abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” and then presents the following curious piece of political and constitutional wisdom:—AMS January 22, 1891, page 25.1

If this proposition can be maintained it may be addressed to a State Court as well as to the United States Court, and it comes within the provisions of the State as well as of the Federal Constitution. There is, in fact, no doubt that the State has power to prohibit labor on Sunday. It may even put silly and unjust restrictions on personal liberty. Such Sunday laws are bad, but the establishment of the right of the Federal Government to overturn State statutes would be worse. The “original package” decision carried us a good way in the wrong direction. We certainly should go no further. The more a citizen depends upon his State and the less the Federal Government touches him, the better for every individual and for our form of government.AMS January 22, 1891, page 25.2

How this proposition could be addressed to the State Court, it would be well for the World to explain—or rather it might be well for the World to explain how it thinks it could be addressed to the State Court at all. That provision of the United States Constitution is itself addressed to the States. It says, “No State shall make or enforce any law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The question of such a proposition can never arise except as between a State and a citizen of the United States.AMS January 22, 1891, page 25.3

These are the parties to the controversy; and yet the World presents the singular idea that the citizen of the United States is to appeal to the other party in the controversy for decision in his case. That is, one of the parties in this controversy is to be judge in its own case, and to decide for itself and for the other party the constitutionality of the question in dispute! The World would introduce a queer element into jurisprudence.AMS January 22, 1891, page 25.4

Again, by the statement that the establishment of the right of the Federal Government to overturn State statutes would be worse than Sunday laws, it seems that the World has not yet learned that this right has been established by a constitutional amendment for the last twenty-five years. In 1865 there was adopted an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It is the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that “no State shall make or enforce any law abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” That Amendment prohibits any State in this Nation from making any law having the effect named. More than this, it distinctly prohibits any State from enforcing any laws already made, having the effect named.AMS January 22, 1891, page 25.5

In a considerable number of the States when this Amendment was adopted there were laws of long standing which did abridge the privileges and immunities of persons who were by this Amendment made citizens of the United States, but from that time forth no one of these laws, no matter of how long standing, could be enforced. Therefore, by this Amendment it has been declared and established that the Federal Government has the right to overturn State statutes; and that the World at this late date should make such a remark as that, would imply that, in the matter of the Constitution of the United States, that journal is not as well up with the times as its management in other directions demands that it should be.AMS January 22, 1891, page 25.6

It is true that the “original package” decision carried us a long way in the wrong direction, but that direction is not the one suggested by the World. Nor was it in one way only, that the “orginal [sic.] package” decision carried us a long way in the wrong.AMS January 22, 1891, page 26.1

It is likewise true that the “less the Federal Government touches him the better for every individual and for the Government.” But when the State, which ought to protect him, opposes him in the dearest rights that belong to men, that is, his religious convictions, then the Federal Government must touch him in the exercise of the supreme protective power which it must possess over its own citizens.AMS January 22, 1891, page 26.2

We can only say again that in the above argument the World sets forth a queer piece of political and constitutional wisdom. We wish it would try again.AMS January 22, 1891, page 26.3

A. T. J.

“A Serious Question” The American Sentinel 6, 4, pp. 26, 27.

ATJ

A GOOD deal has been said throughout this country the past year upon the subject of compulsory education, even to the extent of compulsory religious education. In a good many instances Germany has been cited as a model Government in this respect; but the Emperor of Germany has lately shown a disposition to take heroic measures, to a certain extent, with this thing in his dominions, declaring that, the system of “eternal cramming” which has been worked, “has already made the nation suffer from the overproduction of learned and so-called educated people, the number of whom is now more than the nation can bear, and who constitute a distinct danger to society.”AMS January 22, 1891, page 26.1

England also has a system of compulsory education; and in her speech from the throne at the late opening of Parliament, the Queen of Great Britain called the attention of that body to another evil which is found there. She said: “Your attention will be called to the expediency of alleviating the burden which the law of compulsory education has within recent years imposed upon the poorer portions of the people.”AMS January 22, 1891, page 26.2

In view of these two official statements from the heads of two of the strongest Governments of earth, and the two which have enforced the system of compulsory education, those in this country who are so strongly urging the adoption of such a system here, ought to be led more carefully to consider that question. Attention has been called several times by THE SENTINEL to the fact stated by Emperor William, that education without character instead of being a benefit either to the individual or to the State, is a detriment to both. Instead of its being for the safety of the State it is dangerous to the State. It is so when it is voluntarily done, but when the State itself compels the people by an eternal cramming to be educated without character, it is only destroying itself; and as the State cannot give character, this raises a serious question whether compulsory education is for the safety of the State, and therefore whether it is right.AMS January 22, 1891, page 26.3

The statement of the Queen of Great Britain raises another question in connection with this. That statement shows that heavy, if not unbearable burdens, have been laid upon the poor by the compulsory system of education, which it becomes necessary for the State to relieve. Why then should the State burden the poor, or in fact any portion of its citizens, in order to create a condition of society which the Emperor of Germany declares is more than the nation can bear, and which constitutes a distinct danger to society itself? It would be well for the American people to consider these things before they give themselves too much to the principle of compulsory education.AMS January 22, 1891, page 27.1

A. T. J.

“Sunday Closing Justifies the Saloon” The American Sentinel 6, 4, p. 27.

ATJ

QUITE an active canvass was conducted in California on the Sunday question during most of the past year. In Oakland there was a strong Sunday-closing campaign. During the political struggle the Sunday-law workers did their best to get the candidates of the regular parties to pledge themselves to favor Sunday laws in the Legislature in return for votes. A Sunday-closing crusade was also conducted in Los Angeles. Some items upon the methods employed in the latter place will be given later. Here we wish to call attention to the memorial which a National Reformer, with the aid of the Central Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, circulated for signatures, and presented to the City Council of Oakland. It was as follows:—AMS January 22, 1891, page 27.1

We, citizens of Oakland, respectfully ask you to pass an ordinance requiring all the saloons to be closed from six o’clock Saturday evening until six o’clock Monday morning. Because,AMS January 22, 1891, page 27.2

1. Open saloons are not needed on the weekly rest-day.AMS January 22, 1891, page 27.3

2. Saloon-keepers as well as others need the rest and the opportunities which the day affords.AMS January 22, 1891, page 27.4

3. Open Sunday saloons are schools of vice and temptation to young men.AMS January 22, 1891, page 27.5

4. They are disturbers of the peace, and they lead to debauchery and crime. If closed on Sunday our Monday morning police courts would not be so crowded with drunkards and criminals.AMS January 22, 1891, page 27.6

5. Many industrious laborers, husbands and fathers, spend in these Sunday saloons much of their earnings of the previous week. Thus, such saloons are robbers of poor families.AMS January 22, 1891, page 27.7

6. As it is now lawful and practicable to close the saloons on election days, much more should it be done on our weekly rest-day.AMS January 22, 1891, page 27.8

7. It would do wrong to none, but good to all classes; and multitudes of the best citizens would be grateful to the Council.AMS January 22, 1891, page 27.9

Every argument in that memorial justifies the saloon on every day of the week but Sunday. The first proposition, that open saloons are “not needed” on the weekly rest-day, grants that they may be, if they are not actually, needed on other days of the week. The second one, that saloon-keepers as well as others need the rest and opportunities which the day affords, argues that saloon-keeping is a worthy business,—so entirely worthy, in fact, that saloon-keepers should have a regularly recurring rest-day to recuperate their wasted energies, so that they can carry on their work the other six days with more vigor and to the very best purpose. No stronger argument could be made in favor of the saloons business on every day of the week but Sunday than is made in this statement by that portion of the National Reform Association, and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union.AMS January 22, 1891, page 27.10

Number 3, in saying that Sunday saloons are schools of vice and temptation to young men, argues that the saloons at other times are not such. Number 4 is to the same effect, and Number 5 emphasizes this argument. Note, it says that many industrious laborers, husbands and fathers, spend in these Sunday saloons much of their earnings of the previous week, and then declares that “such saloons are robbers of poor families.” By this they distinctly and emphatically single out the Sunday saloon from every other kind of saloon, and then say that such saloons as that are robbers of poor families.AMS January 22, 1891, page 27.11

Without an open and positive defense of the saloon and all that it implies, it would be impossible to present a stronger justification of it at all times except Sunday than is presented in this memorial.AMS January 22, 1891, page 27.12

The non-partisan Woman’s Christian Temperance Union not only did wisely, but showed itself loyal to the principle of temperance, when it refused to take any part in the question of Sunday closing. Because the real issue, as they stated it, is not in the interests of temperance, but in behalf of Sunday only.AMS January 22, 1891, page 27.13

A. T. J.

January 15, 1891

January 29, 1891