“Yesterday, I, together with the other delegates of the Chicago Woman’s Club, had the pleasure of listening to the arguments in favor of Sunday closing. Before I attempt to make any new points,—if any can be made after all this talking,—it might be advisable to answer some of the arguments advanced at that time. It may seem somewhat presumptuous forgone feeble woman to endeavor to reply to such able and practiced speakers as were before you yesterday, if it were not for two things,—First, that I am as much in earnest in my belief that the Sunday opening will “work for righteousness,” as they are in the opposite view, and I have that courage of my convictions which is the birth-right of every American; and second, that the reverend gentlemen so kindly lessened my task for me by answering so many of their own arguments.CAR 48.4

“To be explicit-the charge of greed, of self-seeking, and of many other malicious forms of selfishness was brought against, not only Chicago, but the managers of the Fair, its directory, and the gentlemen of this committee themselves, as the only motive which could possibly influence them to give this resolution a fair hearing. But a number of the other speakers knocked down this house of cards, by declaring most emphatically that to open the Fair on Sunday would be to lose money. How can greed lead us into a money-losing scheme? Both arguments cannot be good, and you are invited to take your choice, to either declare yourselves the unprincipled money-grabbers which these gentlemen did not hesitate to call you, or to say that you really believe that if the World’s Fair were opened on Sunday, no one would attend!CAR 48.5

“Then the diversity of opinion as to the correct way to address a congressional committee, was very marked and very puzzling. Some of them seemed to think that this was a Sunday-school convention, and exhorted accordingly, not hesitating to call down upon the patient committeemen, vengeance from on high if special sectarian views did not entirely rule the legislature. Others, however, rebuked their brother ministers for this untimely sermonizing and declared in so many words that talk about religion was not to the point, and ‘that Congress’-I am quoting here-’was not a tract society to distribute tracts on religious freedom.’ I quite agree with the doctor. It is not a tract society for tracts either on religious freedom or on the fourth commandment. Its business is, as he said, to legislate for the rights of the people, and one of our immemorial rights is the right to worship God, each in his own way, whether in the church, in the silence of his inmost soul, or in the vast and impressive display of the highest of God’s works, as shown to man.CAR 49.1

“There was presented here the extraordinary spectacle of a business man declaring that the argument was one of religious feeling entirely, and of men vowed to religion, declaring that they spoke only from a business point of view. It was as if each distrusted the validity of the argument on the ground wherewith his life work had made him familiar, and believed himself safer on unknown territory. It reminds one of the story of the polyglot American who was said by his German friends to speak beautiful French, and by his French friends to speak beautiful German. There was not a business man here yesterday but saw the weakness of the business arguments, nor a clergyman but saw the flows in the theological ones.CAR 49.2

“There was one argument,—I mean, one bit of vituperation, which, as a Chicagoan I must really resent,—though it is hardly worth while,—and that is that it would be dishonorable in the city to use the money voted by Congress without accepting the condition attached. Now these gentlemen must know there has been no talk of that. But there is nothing dishonorable in asking Congress to remove a restriction which greatly decreases the value of its gift. The fact that it has been so petitioned shows that Chicago feels herself uncomfortably bound by her honorable obligations, and would be glad to have them honorably removed.CAR 49.3

“And, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, wasn’t it a little hard, weren’t you a little humbled, to hear this reverend body of petitioners ‘talk down’ to you? There were few of them who had any faith that you would be moved by any high religious or moral considerations. Most of them openly scoffed at the idea. And some of these men, pledged by their profession to avoid envy, malice, and all uncharitableness, not only implied the low moral tone of the men they were addressing, but said openly-I quote verbatim-that ‘all the World’s Fair was on the make,’ and again that ‘the milk in the cocoanut was the Sunday fee.’ Would these gentlemen, whose business it is to uplift the people and the English language, have used these expressions before an ordinarily respectable church audience? But it was evidently considered the sort of thing that congressmen are used to. Moreover, they threatened-and of all things, the boycott! The very tactics they preach against from their pulpits. And one man said that the ‘religious boycott was justified by the deep prejudices of the people.’CAR 50.1

“I have a profound respect and reverence, as all fair-minded people must have, for the man who believes in his religion and stands upon it against the world; but I have precious little respect for the clergyman, who, when he wants to win a worldly advantage, uses a worldly argument, making the admission that the heavenly one is insufficient for practical purposes. The man who claims to have faith in prayer, and yet descends to the boycott!CAR 50.2

“I am aware that we who stand for the Sunday opening, make a poor show against the several millions of population (not counting families) which each one of these versatile men was able to represent here yesterday. I myself do not claim to represent more than a few hundred thousand. I am, perhaps, a little modest in this estimate, but modesty becomes a woman, if not a clergyman. [Laughter.] Joking aside, I know that we cannot possibly make as good a showing as some church societies, and the reason is that we are not organized as they are. The great mass of liberal and thoughtful people all over the country are not so organized that they can act as one, before such a committee, but their numbers may be-nay are-even greater than those contained in the societies here represented. They are simply quiet and tolerant private citizens, who, for the most part, are rather amused that any one should be intolerant. But while this organization of the evangelical churches gives them an advantage in being able to present petitions and speakers, it is, gentlemen, a danger! Our forefathers foresaw the danger of an organized minority coercing an unorganized majority, and forbade this country a standing army; there is as much danger, or, as the history of religious persecution shows, more danger, in the [original illegible] of an organized body of churchmen in the affairs of the State, than in a standing army. Nothing can so undermine the liberty of a people as a belief that there is but one road to salvation, which all must walk, if not willingly, then by force.CAR 50.3

“Did you notice the little remarks about Sunday traffic and Sunday mails, yesterday? Logically, if the arguments of these deluded leaders be held as valid for the closing of the World’s Fair, they must be held as valid against Sunday trains. Who seriously supposes that Congress would ever think of suppressing Sunday travel because of the religious prejudices of the people, whatever the Society of Christian Endeavor might say. Why, such an attempt would bring about a revolution-which shows what is the real sentiment of the vast bulk of the people.CAR 51.1

“I am a Chicagoan, and might possibly prove the fact by being a little boastful and claiming the earth; but I do not think Chicago, nor even my loved country, marshals under its banner all Christianity. In other Christian countries the art galleries and exhibits are open on Sunday, and when, as one of the speakers yesterday averred, during the last Paris exposition the American exhibit was closed on Sunday, the French government thought the matter of sufficient importance to enter a protest. Shall we, when we invite the world’s nations to be our guests, reflect upon their religious observances, and force them, in company with the immense contingent not represented by the gentlemen who spoke yesterday, to accept Puritan institutions or be banned as unchristian? Shall we do all in our power to force them into a religious form against their wills? If these nations had heard some of the denunciations hurled against their ‘decaying, unsabbatarian governments,’ they would not feel that we had been courteous or fair, and might, not unjustly, assume that they had been lured hither with the World’s Fair as a gigantic bait that they might be converted to the Christian Endeavor Society.CAR 51.2

“Gentlemen, I am myself a Christian woman, and, after yesterday, I am almost tempted to explain what I mean by that word, for the Mosaic law is not to me all comprehensive, but I follow Christ’s interpretation of this same vexed question, and would keep the Lord’s day in the spirit of him who picked corn and healed the sick, and was rebuked by the reformers of his own time, and believe with the divine Teacher before whom we all bow, that man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man.”CAR 51.3

What is the situation now as the legislation stands at the latest moment before this statement goes to press? Here is an article from the Chicago Herald, which gives the situation, as it was immediately after the hearing, and no man can fairly deny the correctness of the description:—CAR 52.1

REMARKS BY COL. ELLIOTT F. SHEPARD

“SUNDAY CLOSERS LIKELY TO WIN