His Last Lecture on the Evils of Religious Legisation—all Should Read it—The True Position of Dr. Crafts and other National Reformers—They Reject the Gospel of Christ and Repudiate Its Principles—Busy Times at the Camp and Many New Arrivals—Crowds on the Grounds Sunday but Fly Before the Wind Storm—The New, Camp Programs

Special Correspondence of the CAPITAL.

CAMP GROUND, OTTAWA, Kan., May 20.—There has been a series of heavy showers with sometimes hail, for a few days, attended with sunshine, which interferes somewhat with the different exercises and seriously incommodes [sic.] the new comers who are pouring in. As far as classes of instruction go this has been a busy time since the institute closed and the workers’ meeting began. As many as four canvassers classes’ have been in session at one and the same time and besides three or four meetings of other kinds perhaps during the same hours. The canvassers, however, under the generalship of Captain Eldridge and his Lieutenant Belden seem to out flank the conference committee every time and get in more meetings than all the other branches of work. Every thing is bustle and activity and much good and profitable instruction is being given and received, so that cheerful faces are seen everywhere in spite of the mud and wet and even though the workers do crowd the ministers so closely that the latter are seriously pondering the question whether or no they have any “rights” at a campmeeting, yet all feel it is good to be here, and rejoice, pressing forward in harmony. Elder Jones and wife have left, he going to the campmeeting at Williamsport, Penn., and she to their home in Battle Creek, Mich. Elder Olson leaves for the latter place tomorrow, going from there to Colorado, and then to Minneapolis. Elder W. C. White and D. T. Jones will remain throughout the week, and Mrs. White will be with us to the close of the meeting. The park was crowded Sunday afternoon, but a heavy wind and rain storm scattered the people towards sundown. The following program takes the place of the one previously printed in the CAPITAL, and will remain in force throughout the balance of the campmeeting.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.1

CAMP PROGRAM

5:30 p. m. Young people in west tent, foreigners in east tent, all others in the tabernacle.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.2

8:00 a. m. Family Worship—Children in west tent, conference committee in office, all others in district tents.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.3

9:00 a. m. Annual Business meeting.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.4

10:30 a. m. Bible Readings—For the public and those new in the faith in the tabernacle, for older membership in the east tent, for young people in the west tent, for Bible workers and for foreigners under grand stand.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.5

12:00 a. m. Consultations—District leaders in west tent, reception committee in the east tent.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.6

2:30 p. m. The afternoon sermon or lecture.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.7

4:30 p. m. Annual business meetings.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.8

6:15 p. m. Sabbath school teachers in west tent, canvassers in the east tent.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.9

7:30 p. m. The evening sermon or lecture.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.10

THE CLOSING LECTURE OF ELDER JONES

We want to examine tonight what authority there is for Sunday laws. In the hearing before the senate committee, the following colloquy took place. Mr. Jones in answer to the question raised by Mr. Wood, that the conscientious convictions did not require us to work on the first day of the week, the sixth day, I wish to rend Judge Cooley’s opinion.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.11

Mr. Wood—I referred to the Bible.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.12

Mr. Jones.—Well Judge Cooley’s opinion is of force in law. Judge Cooley says: “But the Jew who is forced to respect the first day of the week when his conscience requires of him the observance of the seventh also, may plausibly urge that the law discriminates against his religion, and by forcing him to keep a second Sabbath in each week, unjustly, though by indirection, punishes him for his belief.” I have shownTDC May 22, 1889, page 3.13

The chairman. He says “plausibly.” That word “plausibly” might indicate that there are some counter views somewhere.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.14

Mr. Jones.—The argument is unanswerable. The supreme court of Pennsylvania mention certain grounds upon which this is sustained. I read further from Judge Cooley, he says:TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.15

“The laws which prohibit ordinary employment on Sunday are to be defended either on the same grounds, which justify the punishment of profanity, or as establishing sanitary regulations, based upon the demonstration of experience that one day’s rest in seven is needful to recuperate the exhausted energies of body and mind.” That is the basis of this petition. This answer to that is this: “The supreme court of Pennsylvania has preferred to such legislation on the second ground rather than the first, but it appears to us that if the benefit to the individual is alone to be considered, the argument against the law which he may make who has already observed the seventh day of the week, is unanswerable.” (Stephen J. Field claimed years ago that scientists and statesman had proven that man required one day’s rest in seven for his physical system, but he did not try to show why man needed two days instead of one. All this is a fraud. It comes in with that “one day in seven” theory, and it came in as I have already shown, in the sixteenth century through Mr. Nicholas Bowne.)TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.16

Mr. Blair said: He also holds that for the general, the public good, Sunday laws are constitutional.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.17

Mr. Jones: Yes; so as to be dispensed upon authority. Then the next sentence is as follows:TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.18

“But, on the other ground, it is clear that these laws are supportable on authority, notwithstanding the inconvenience which they occasion to those whose religious sentiments do not recognize the sacred character of the first day of the week.”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.19

(That is Judge Cooley’s way of answering an unanswerable argument, and that has been the way since Sozoman’s time, who when asked on what authority he issued certain edicts, answered “It has pleased the apostolic see”—so in the English Parliament; they levied a tax and our fathers refused to submit, and we refuse now.)TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.20

Mr. Jones—“What authority is there for Sunday laws?”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.21

The chairman—“That is what you have been discussing, but you seem to say that because Sunday laws are supported by authority it is the only argument in favor of a bad law, that there is authority for it. But there may be good authority for the Sunday law.”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.22

Mr. Jones—“That is what is shown here, that there is no good authority for it, when it unjustly punishes a man for his unbelief.”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.23

The chairman—“He does not say it is bad.”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.24

Mr. Jones—“But is it. Is there any answer to an unanswerable argument?” I want to examine tonight what authority there is for Sunday laws. Dr. Crafts, Dr. Herrick Johnson and the others claim as a basis the fourth commandment. What authority is there then in the fourth commandment for Sunday laws? Now, this is a question of legislation and of law, so then let us examine it from a legal standpoint. If the bill should pass, and become a law, the courts will be guided on its interpretation by certain well established rules, one of which is: “What a court has to do is to declare the law as written.” Now, suppose the law takes cognizance of the fourth commandment. If they do they must take it as it is written, and it says the seventh day is the Sabbath, and this very first rule of law will shut out the Sunday law. But they will say “it does not say which seventh day. Now it is plain that it is the seventh day after six days of work by the Creator at creation, and consequently it must be the seventh day of a circle of seven, and as the new testament shows the Sabbath, is past before the first day of the week appears, read Mark 16:1-2; Luke 24:1.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.25

The second rule is “In the case of all laws, it is the intent of the law giver that it is to be enforced.” Now what was the intent of the law giver? Was it not the seventh day that he wished to be kept? Did he not prove them all through the wilderness, by the fall of manna on six days, the double portion on the sixth day and none on the seventh for forty years? Did he not show what day he required to be kept? Well, according to law then, the courts can never uphold Sunday laws of the fourth commandment. Another rule is “When words are plain in a written law, there is an end to all construction; they must be followed.” There is no room for construction where the words are common and such as the people can understand. How many words are there in the fourth commandment that are not plain? Not one. The words are not only plain, but the plainest, purest of English. Courts then must declare against the law, if they are going to remain courts of law, but the theologians will come in with their theological definitions and expect the courts to follow them and so turn the courts into courts of theology. But when they attempt to say that the expression is indefinite they assume authority that no man has, because if it is indefinite the Lord made it so and no power on earth can make it definite. They first declare it to be indefinite and then go about to declare it definite by putting Sunday in.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.26

If the courts go against the common rules of law another rule is violated which says: “No forced or unnatural construction shall be put upon the language of a statute.” To make the phrase “the seventh day” in that commandment indefinite, and mean any one day in seven, and not any seventh day in particular, or to make the commandment support the observance of the first day of the week in commemoration of the resurrection is not only to put a forced construction and a most unnatural one, upon it but is a direct violation of that other rule; “A constitution or statute is not to be make to mean one thing at one time and another at some subsequent time when the circumstances may have so changed as perhaps to make a different rule in the case seem desirable. The meaning of the constitution (or statute) is fixed when it is adopted, and it is not different at any subsequent time when a court has occasion to pass upon it.”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.27

I quote again from the hearing before the senate committee, from the argument of Dr. Herrick Johnson:TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.28

Dr. Johnson. “This appointment of one day in seven is arbitrary. There is nothing in nature to indicate that division of time. There is the day of twenty-four hours, there is the month and there is the year, all these are natural divisions; but there is nothing in nature to indicate the weekly division; the observance of one day in seven. It is arbitrary, and we regard that as an evidence of its Divine origin.”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.29

The Chairman: “How do you base the Sabbath itself upon the Divine ordinance when there is no natural law to indicate which day is to be observed?”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.30

Dr. Johnson: “It is in Revelation, and is found to be exactly in accord with the laws of nature.”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.31

The Chairman: “You base the law of one day’s rest in seven upon Revelation” that is to say upon the Bible?”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.32

Dr. Johnson: “Yes sir.”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.33

The Chairman: “There are many who doubt that it is established by Revelation, are there not?”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.34

Dr. Johnson: “I think no one who accepts the Bible doubts that there is one day in seven to be observed as a day of rest.”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.35

The chairman—Will you state the authority?TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.36

Mr. Johnson—There are references to this law all through the Bible.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.37

The chairman—Now you come and change that Sabbath day to which the Lord there refers?TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.38

Mr. Johnson—That we hold was changed by the Lord himself.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.39

The chairman—When did he do that, and by what language?TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.40

Mr. Johnson—There was a meeting for worship on the first day in the week, the day the Lord arose, and seven days after there was another meeting for the same purpose, and then it is referred to as the Lord’s day.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.41

The chairman—After the change?TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.42

Mr. Johnson—Yes sir, after the change.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.43

The chairman—It is based, then, upon two or three days being observed as days of religious worship, after the resurrection?TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.44

Mr. Johnson—Yes sir.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.45

This, then is all the authority they have for Sunday observance, and yet they go to the fourth commandment as a basis. What then is it all but going contrary to the statute? The commandment was established and adopted long before there was any need of a resurrection, and the seventh day was the meaning and intention of its author long before such a necessity could have existed, and it cannot, therefore, be made to mean another thing now. Another rule of law is this: “A court or legislature which should allow a change of public sentiment to influence it in giving to a written constitution a construction not warranted by the intention of its founders would be justly chargeable with reckless disregard of official oath and public duty.”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.46

Now what is it that these theologians ask congress to do? Is it not to have the law give a construction to the commandments that God never intended? This is precisely what Senator Blair asks congress to give them power to do. Senator Blair’s bill refers to Sunday as “the Lord’s day.” If, then the bill had become a law would not the courts have to search the Bible to ascertain from it what day the Lord claimed as his? In such a case, what would have been learned? The first declaration is this: “The son of man is lord also of the Sabbath.” The next: “The seventh day is the Sabbath.” Very well then, the son of man is the lord of the seventh day. All must admit that this conclusion is logical and cannot be successfully controverted. Hence, whatever day it is that Christ is the lord of, that day is the Sabbath. John said, “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day,” and therefore John was in the spirit on the seventh day. But the argument of these men will be, “The courts are not to set themselves up as interpreters of the Bible, but simply to decide what the law means. In doing this what will it be? They first assert that Sunday is the Lord’s day and then compel people to accept it as such whether they are willing to do so or not. There is no authority for Sunday laws in the fourth commandment, and, therefore, to obtain authority the courts of law will have to be turned into courts of theology, and the church will have to dictate to the courts, thus ruling the state.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.47

Now the Sunday laws of the younger states are all based upon the laws of the older ones, every one of the original thirteen states having a state religion and Sunday laws. These older ones obtained theirs from England and it from the papacy. The British system is the papal under a Christian name, and back of it all paganism from which it animated. The first Sunday, as we have seen was appointed by Constantine, who assumed the title Pontifex Maximus of the Christians and the pagan title also that in his dual capacity he might please all his subjects. A high authority asserts that the title he used, Dies Solis, is a sufficient evidence of the pagan idea (day of the sun, i. e., sun-day) that attached to its origin, and this was Constantine’s idea to harmonize the different elements to the new faith. This is the only authority there is for the observance of the Sunday. There is none whatever in the Scriptures. Then instead of making efforts to establish Sunday laws, should we not aim to blot them out from our state statute books, and raise the legislation and the constitution of the states up to the level of the constitution of the United States? It has been suggested that the next application to congress shall be more modest than the former one, so that no attempt at religious legislation will appear in it—they will ask simply that the government employees be allowed to rest on Sunday—but it is the duty of every good citizen to oppose to the last, every attempt to legislate upon the question of Sunday laws or Sunday observance in any form. These men want to establish a precedent. If they can get the government to recognize the principle that a state has a right to legislate on these subjects, their demands will increase until finally they obtain full power by laws favoring their position entire. Dr. Crafts says of this new policy: “It will lead to something more satisfactory.” That was Constantine’s argument precisely in the fourth century, and the result was the creation of the papacy, and just so surely as congress takes the first step, however innocent it may appear, just so sure a papacy will follow.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.48

Now I want to speak of the petitions that were presented to congress, claiming to contain 14,000,000 names and show you the wickedness and dishonesty in the whole scheme, and leave it for you to decide if anything but evil can come of such unholy methods. When Senator Blair presented the petition to congress said to contain 14,000,000 names, he made the statement that there were only 407 bona fide signatures. I wrote personally to the senator and asked if this statement was correct, and he replied that it was, and said: “I read the extract which you find in the Record from memoranda furnished in the common way by those who requested the presentation,” and adds: “You can have access to the files or any friend, if you can not attend to it, and get the facts as to signatures.” Foot after foot of the rolls of the petition, the names are all signed by the same hand, one hand for a foot or more in length, and another for the next, and soon. How did this come about? All but the writer’s name is given by “endorsement,” he writing all the names and attaching a certificate signed by himself that the parties endorsed the petition. These personal signatures are all the bona fide names there are. A minister would read the petition in church, and ask all to assent to it. If, say fifty, out of the 300 present perhaps signified their acquiescence he would retire to his study and under order from headquarters fill in the names of every attendant at the church, even the names of those who were not present, because, as one explained, “silence gives consent, and we must obey orders any way.” And now they are going over the ground again by order of the secretary of the National Reform association who sent out a circular requesting them to obtain this time, the personal signature of each church member, and so “duplicate” the names. When this is carried out then, and they add these new lists to the old, they will have 28,000,000 names instead of 14,000,000.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.49

Now as to “endorsing” the petitions, Miss Bateham, the attorney for the W. C. T. U., says: “Signatures are most valuable but endorsements count up fastest.” In Indianapolis, Dr. Crafts obtained the signatures of 240 Knights of Labor to the petition, and because they were delegates to a convention from other points, he claimed the whole body of Knights in the United States “by endorsement”—240,000 in all. Again Cardinal Gibbons wrote a letter in which he said: “I am most happy, to add my name,” and on the strength of this one signature the 7,200,000 Catholics in the United States were added to the petitions “by endorsement.” Mr. D. E. Lindsey of Baltimore wrote to the cardinal asking if he intended, by saying his name, to include all other Catholics, and I read you his reply through his secretary:TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.50

“In reply to your favor dated February 25, 1889, duly received, His Eminence Cardinal Gibbons desires me to write to you that whatsoever countenance his eminence has given to the ‘Sunday law’ referred to in your favor, as he had not the authority, so he had not the intention, of binding the archbishops, the bishops, or the Catholic laity of the United States. His eminence bids me say to you that he was moved to write a letter favoring the passage of the bill, mainly from a consideration of the rest and recreation which would result to our poor overworked fellow citizens, and of the facility which it would then afford them of observing the Sunday in a religious and decorous way. It is incorrect to assume that his eminence, in the alleged words of Senator Blair, set forth in your favor, signed the bill, thus pledging 7,200,000 Catholics as indorsing the bill.” I have the honor to remain, with much respect, yours faithfully,TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.51

[Signed] J. P. DONAHUE, Chancellor.”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.52

If it is borne in mind, also, that a large portion of these Catholics are members of the Knights of Labor, already counted, “duplicating” comes in again. So, too the general conferences of the Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist and Dutch Reformed Churches “endorsed” the petitions and Dr. Crafts therefore counted in all the members of these denominations, although already endorsed in their respective Churches by their pastors. Further, a large percent of the membership of the Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist Churches are members also of the W. C. T. U., all of whom had been previously counted, thus triplicating their names, and in the new petitions it will be quadrupling them. As to the Catholic signatures, it is not true the petition finds favor among them. Catholic dignitaries and the laity all over the country are signing the remonstrance against such legislation. One gentleman in Minneapolis, Minn., procured the signatures of over 1,200 bishops, priests, nun, etc., and nearly every Catholic to whom the remonstrance is presented signs it. Further, in the petition presented to congress by these men, it is claimed that every signature is that of persons “over 21 years of age,” while, as seen above, all the Catholics of all ages had been counted, and in Sunday schools the names of all the children even infants, have been taken.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.53

I want to show you how Dr. Crafts succeeded in obtaining the signatures of the Knights of Labor at Indianapolis. He was asked if it would be best for the government to control all the railroads and to stop Sunday trains. He replied, “I believe in that,” and said, in substance, “If the railroads refuse what we now ask, the people may demand control over all the work.” He then read the following petition, the same as is being extensively circulated now in Minnesota and other states: “Petition of adult citizens of the state of—for a six-day law. To the state senate: The undersigned earnestly petition your honorable body to pass a bill forbidding anyone to hire another or to be hired for more than six days of any week, except in domestic service and the care of the sick, in order that those whom law or custom permits to work on Sunday may be protected in their right to some other weekly rest day, and in their right to a week’s wages for six day’s work.”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.54

No wonder he obtained their signatures, yet there are many knights who could not be induced to sign any petitions favoring Sunday legislation, in any form. The principle underlying the above quoted petition is genuine socialism. If a man can legally collect pay for a day more than he works, he can demand pay for not working at all. If he is entitled to seven days’ pay for six day’s labor, then six days’ pay can be demanded for five days’ work, five days’ for four, four days’ for three, three days’ for two, two days’ for one, and one day for no work at all. Is not this the logical sequence? But it may be claimed that these men do not really mean to demand seven days’ pay for six days’ labor, but I can show you that they do. In Rev. George Elliott’s argument before the senate committee the following questions from Senator Call and answered by Mr. Elliott appear:TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.55

Senator Call: “Do you propose that Congress shall make provision to pay the people in the employ of the government who are exempted on Sunday for Sunday work?”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.56

Mr. Elliott: “I expect you to give them an adequate compensation.”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.57

Senator Call: “Do you propose that the law shall provide that the same amount shall be paid for six days’ work as for seven?”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.58

Mr. Elliott: “I do, for the reason that we believe these employees can do all the work that is to be done in six days, and if they do all the work they ought to have all the pay.”TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.59

Let us pause here and ask the working man seriously this question. If these men succeed in their effort to “rescue” you from the “monopolies” that oppress you, who will afterwards rescue you from the religious monopoly into which they seek to drag you? And bear in mind that a religious monopoly is the most terrible and formidable of any the earth has ever seen. My friends, when ministers go about on such business as this, deliberately pandering to the socialistic tendencies of the laboring classes and truckling to the dogma of the Catholic church, that the priests have a right to dictate to the people how they shall act and speak, carrying this principle into their own Churches, even boasting that they control certain numbers of votes which they are willing to trade off for political favors. When ministers go about on such business they are everything but ministers of the gospel. And that the gospel will be, nay has been, rejected in the prosecution of their nefarious schemes, I will show you. There was held in Columbus, O., last February what was called the Ohio International Sabbath convention, held in the interests of Sunday legislation, and was supposed to represent the entire denominations in the state. A large number of prominent speakers were present including Dr. Wilbur F. Crafts and Hon. Thomas McDougall of Cincinnati who had been specially invited. I want to show you that this gentleman presented the gospel of Jesus Christ as the proper means of regenerating mankind, and that this convention (having among it vice president and others of the National Reform association) deliberately rejected the gospel and refused to allow the gentleman to speak again. I make extracts from the speech which can be found printed in full in the American Sentinel, Oakland, Cal., issue of April 3.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.60

“Being in full sympathy with every well directed and reasonable movement for a better observance of the civil Sabbath, I respond to your call on me to speak. The evils existing and complained of are in our large cities (speaking of the indulgence etc). How is existing law to be enforced in them? Their welfare is the problem of the statesman and the Christian.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.61

Any law on this subject which depends for its enforcement on a resort to a jury, in the existing state of public sentiment in our large cities, must be of necessity a failure under any fair system of selecting a jury which represents the community from which it is drawn. What, then is to be done? Seek the highest good attainable. The redemption of the masses in our large cities and their elevation to a better observance of law is to be sought through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Ministering in His name, go to their homes, seek their welfare, educate them by the power and teaching of Jesus Christ, and there will come to you that reform you seek. They are waiting for his service, his education. Not in conventions; not in resolutions; not in the fiats of legislation, but give your time, money, prayer, and service to carrying to the homes of the toiling masses the beneficent gospel, and you will elevate and reform, as nothing else can do or will, those whom you now regard as the enemies of the Sabbath. Let us learn that this is an intensely practical question, presenting questions for our consideration difficult to solve and which no legislation can solve. The roots of the evil are deeper; they need the gospel of Christ as the power to give us what we desire. Abandon agitation and service for the unattainable and consecrate your time money, prayers and service to carrying to those for whom Christ died, His gospel of love and his ministry of service.” In the very next meeting after this address, a motion was made “that this convention is not in accord with Mr. McDougall’s speech.” The motion was carried unanimously and without debate. A similar meeting had been arranged in Cincinnati for the following Saturday for Mr. McDougall to speak, but when the committee read his Columbus speech they waited upon the gentleman and asked him if the speech he made at Columbus embodied the sentiments he expected to express at Cincinnati. Upon receiving his reply that it did, they requested him not to attend the meeting, and as Mr. McDougall replied that he was not in the habit of going where he was not wanted—“the speaker of the meeting”—was not present. Now then, in repudiating the doctrine of Jesus Christ, are these men not logically consistent? Certainly they are, because if they can make men righteous by legislation what need have they for the Gospel? Further, can these political ministers be followers of the meek and lowly Jesus, who repudiated politics, and said “My kingdom is not of this earth.” The Gospel of Christ does not consort well with political scheming; and suggestions to preach the Gospel and to work by Gospel methods and means are not palatable to the political preacher.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.62

Under our constitution and government this country has been the example to all the world. Its example has carried forward all nations into a broader light. Is not this a grand testimony in favor of our constitution and country as it now is? When then, those men attempt to alter the religious and civil freedom which we now enjoy, and which has been such a regenerating power, by its example on other nations, and seek to substitute for it enforcement of religious legislation and religious intolerance, relegating the nation back into the dark ages again, what will be the consequences to other countries? Why they will degenerate backward also, the papacy will again rear its head and become supreme, and a living image of it be set up in our own country upon a papal basis.TDC May 22, 1889, page 3.63

May 21, 1889