Thursday morning, April 25, Rev. David McAllister, of Pittsburg, delivered an address upon the above subject before the National Reform Convention assembled at that place. In beginning he referred to a paper that had just been read on “The Romish Assault on the Common Schools,” stating that his address came in very appropriately after that topic, for the reason, as he said, that “when this assault is understood by multitudes of our citizens, they can see no way of meeting it except by the secular theory of education.” He then proceeded as follows:—AMS June 5, 1889, page 145.1

“What commands my respect for the Catholics is this, that they maintain that education cannot be complete when that education ignores religion. They are on the right ground there. Man is a religious as well as an intellectual being, and no scheme of education, whether by the family, or the church, or the State, is worthy the name that ignores the higher part of man’s nature. The only mistake with Romanists is this, that the religion which they insist upon it; the religion of Romanists. No other religion will they have. They won’t accept the principles that are common to Romanian with Protestantism, for there are such principles. They won’t allow these to be taught, for they maintain that any system of religion that leaves out what they regard as essential is utterly defective, and heresy is to be condemned, and heretics who embrace it are to be persecuted.”AMS June 5, 1889, page 145.2

There are several points about this paragraph which we wish to notice. We are willing to admit that a man is not perfectly developed whose education does not embrace the moral and the physical as well as the purely intellectual. But that does not prove that it is the duty of the State to educate him in all of these principles. Indeed, it is an open question with leading educators how far the State should go in education on even a secular basis. There are not a few who maintain that the State should teach nothing except the common English branches, leaving all scientific and classical studies to be provided for by the individual himself, or by his guardians. Certainly then the statement that man is a religious as well as an intellectual being,—that no scheme of education is complete that ignores the higher branch of man’s nature,—proves nothing whatever as to how or by whom this higher part should be educated. We hold that it is not the province of the State to furnish religious education of any kind whatever; that for the State to get into the business of teaching religion is directly opposed to our Government, in that it involves class legislation. There are so many conflicting views concerning religion, and the public schools cannot by any possibility teach them all, so that if the State should go into the business of religious education it would be obliged to discriminate between a large class of citizens as worthy as those who are favored.AMS June 5, 1889, page 145.3

Again, note Mr. McAllister’s statement that the only mistake with the Romanist idea of education is that the religion upon which they insist is the religion of Romanists. In this they are perfectly consistent, and nobody can justly find any fault with them for it. Protestants who are worthy of the name must take a similar position, and insist that whatever religion is taught their children, whether by the State or otherwise, shall be none but the Protestant religion. But by this token we know that National Reformers are not Protestants, because they are willing to join with Romanists. It is true that Mr. McAllister wishes to compromise, having the State teach such branches as are common to both Protestants and Romanists; but he might as well go right over to the Catholic Church at once; for when he begs the. State to teach the principles of the Christian religion, and says that the principles which he desires to have taught are only those which are common to both Protestants and Romanists, he shows that in his mind there are no distinctive features of Protestantism, as compared with Romanism, that are worthy of being held.AMS June 5, 1889, page 145.4

Now let us see where this will lead to. The Romanist will not consent to any such fusion. He thinks that the principles of his religion which differ from Protestantism are vital, and he will not consent that they shall be ignored. In this he is consistent. The only reason why he remains a Romanist is because he regards his religion as superior to Protestantism. But Mr. McAllister, speaking for the National Reform Association, is not so strenuous in regard to his religion. He is willing to drop every feature that is different from Catholicism. The one point upon which Romanists and National Reformers are agreed is that the State shall support religious teaching. Now since the Romanists are decided in their convictions, and refuse to compromise their religion, while the National Reformers are willing to compromise, it is very evident that the stronger and more decided party will carry the day. That is, when National Reformers see that they cannot have religion taught by the State without joining with Catholics, and that the Catholics will not yield, they will compromise, not simply on those principles that are commn to Protestantism and Romanism, but on Romanism pure and simple. That this will be the result is further evident from a statement made in the Christian Statesman of August 31, 1881, by the Rev. Sylvester F. Scovel, who, speaking of the desire of the National Reformers to secure the co-operation of Roman Catholics, said:—AMS June 5, 1889, page 145.5

“We may be subjected to some rebuffs in our first proffers, and the time has not yet come when the Roman Church will consent to strike hands with other churches as such; but the time is come to make repeated advances, and gradually to accept co-operation in any form in which they may be willing to exhibit it. It is one of the necessities of the situation.”AMS June 5, 1889, page 145.6

Now no matter how ardently the Roman Catholic might desire religious education by the State, they would be very foolish to yield a single principle in their religion in order to gain it, when they can see clearly by such statements as this, that by remaining firm they can bring professed Protestants to their position. When the National Reformers say that they are willing to make repeated advances, and to endure repeated rebuffs, and will gladly accept co-operation in any form in which the Roman Church exhibits it, all the Roman Church has to do is to wait. She is well assured that the National Reformers will keep up their wooing, and she is sure of gaining all that she may exact from so ardent a suitor. National Reformers may deny that their scheme, if successful, will make Romanism the ruling power in this country; but their denials amount to nothing in the face of such statements as those of Mr. Scovel and Dr. McAllister.AMS June 5, 1889, page 146.1

In saying this we would not have anyone think that we objected to the National Reform scheme just because it will result in Roman supremacy. We would just as soon see the State enforce the Catholic religion as the Protestant religion. Not but what we have decided convictions in matters of religion, but we have no choice as to what religion the State shall enforce, if it is to enforce any. The Protestant religion united with the State would be no better than Mohammedism. It is the union of Church and State that we protest against. It was by such protesting that Protestantism originated. He who does not protest against such a union is not a Protestant; and when so-called Protestantism is enforced by the State, it ceases to be Protestantism. The reason why we make so much of the statements of National Reformers, both direct and indirect, that they are willing to join hands with Romanists, and of the fact that Romanian will thereby be supreme in the State, is that we thus show clearly that their scheme does embrace the union of Church and State; because Romanian is avowedly in favor of a Church and State union, with the Church as senior partner.AMS June 5, 1889, page 146.2

This one point is sufficient to condemn Mr. McAllister’s entire speech. We might well leave the article here for the present, but will call attention to one little absurdity. Dr. Mc-Allister said:—AMS June 5, 1889, page 146.3

“I might pursue at considerable length a line of argument that has become very familiar with the National Reformers; but I will only revert to it very briefly. It is this: The great mistake that is made by secularists is in comparing the State itself to any mere business association. Secular education rests upon the social compact theory of government-a theory that has been exploded long ago. The best political papers do not entertain it for a moment. There is something back of the social compact theory. Men come together and snake a covenant, and there is a compact. You cannot have a compact without the Nation, and there must be a Nation behind the compact. It is the Nation itself that makes the compact. The duties of government are laid upon it. Here is the being that is to undertake the work of education.”AMS June 5, 1889, page 146.4

Let us make a parallel. Here is a railroad company. A number of men have come together and made a compact, or agreement. They mutually pledge themselves to work together in this line of business, and thus they form a company. They secure a charter and become a corporation. Now we may say there can be no there before the compact, that there must be a Nation behind the compact. But a Nation is not a mere aggregation of individuals, although there can be no Nation without people. Ten million people thrown together promiscuously within a certain territory, each one independent of everybody else, would not be a Nation. They become a Nation only when they unite their interests, and covenant together for mutual protection, and agree upon certain officers to execute their wishes. But according to the National Reform idea there has been a Nation stalking around this American continent from time immemorial, waiting for centuries for people to settle in order that it might make a compact with them, and have people to carry out its designs. Surely, if the National Reform scheme were not inherently wicked, the absurdities into which intelligent men are obliged to run in order to foster it, should consign it to oblivion. But people love to be humbugged.AMS June 5, 1889, page 146.5

E. J. W.

“A True National Reform Government” American Sentinel 4, 19.

E. J. Waggoner

In the Century of April, 1888, Mr. George Kennan had an article on “Russian Penal Code,” from which in the August SENTINEL we copied what it had to say on the subject of religion. In that it was shown clearly that the Russian Government, with all its tyranny and intolerance, is the very kind of government that the National Reformers are working for. In the April Century, this present year, Mr. Kennan gives us a view of the workings of the Russian police department, in which is shown very clearly the working of National Reform principles. The following extract from the article will enable the reader to judge for himself:—AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.1

“The police, with the Minister of the Interior at their head, control, by means of passports, the movements of all the inhabitants of the empire; they keep thousands of suspects constantly under surveillance; they ascertain and certify to the courts the liabilities of bankrupts; they conduct pawnbrokers’ sales of unredeemed pledges; they give certificates of identity to pensioners and all other persons who need them; they superintend repairs of roads and bridges; they exercise supervision over all theatrical performances, concerts, tableaux, theater programs, posters, and street advertisements; they collect statistics, enforce sanitary regulations, make searches and seizures in private houses, read the correspondence of suspects, take charge of the bodies of persons found dead, ‘admonish’ church-members who neglect too long to partake of the Holy Communion, and enforce obedience to thousands of multifarious orders and regulations intended to promote the welfare of the people or to insure the safety of the State. The legislation relating to the police fills more than five thousand sections in the Svod Zakonof, or collection of Russian laws, and it is hardly an exaggeration to say that in the peasant villages, away from the centers of education and enlightenment, the police are the omnipresent and omnipotent regulators of all human conduct-a sort of incompetent bureaucratic substitute for divine Providence.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.2

“In order to give the readers of the Century an idea of the nature and infinite variety of the trans-actions regulated in Russia by the Government through the police, I will quote, almost at random, the titles or subjects of a few of the circular letters of instructions sent by the Minister of the Interior to the governors of various Russian provinces between 1880 and 1884. They are as follows:—AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.3

“1. To regulate religious instruction in secular schools.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.4

“2. Concerning measures to be taken to prevent horse stealing.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.5

“3. Concerning a list of dramas that are unconditionally permitted to be put on the state.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.6

“4. To prohibit the sale of Shimanski’s Pills.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.7

“5. To prohibit peasants from cutting young birch trees with which to decorate churches and houses on holidays.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.8

“6. Prescribing the manner in which the censor shall supervise the reports and accounts of private societies.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.9

“7. Concerning a removal of the restrictions upon the transportation of rendered tallow.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.10

“8. Concerning personal identification marks in the passports of Jews.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.11

“9. To regulate the use of mineral waters by sick or wounded officers of the army.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.12

“10. Concerning an order for the sale of all grain by weight instead of by measure.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.13

“11. Setting forth the circumstances under which, and the times at which, the police and other employes of the Ministry of the Interior can wear white linen covers on their caps.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.14

“12. Concerning the question who has the right to collect subscriptions in the empire for the holy places in Palestine.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.15

“13. To abolish the long chains used for the purpose of chaining together marching criminals in gangs of six.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.16

“14. To regulate printing on the paper of cigarettes.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.17

“15. Concerning the prohibition, at meetings of provincial assemblies and town councils, of the expressions of such opinions or judgments as may, from their nature, lie outside the limits of the jurisdiction of such bodies.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.18

“16. Concerning an order prohibiting the emigration of dissenters to the Trans-Caucasus.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.19

“17. Concerning regulations for the proper construction of houses in peasant villages.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.20

“18. To control and regulate the transportation of animal bones.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.21

“19. To regulate advertisements of medicines.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.22

“20. Forbidding the use of all school-books-and appliances of instruction not approved by the Minister of the Interior and the ecclesiastical authorities.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.23

“21. Concerning the proper method of measuring the legs of recruits for the army.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.24

“22. Concerning meetings of school-teachers.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.25

“23. Prescribing the manner in which permission shall be obtained for concerts, readings, theatrical performances, and other public entertainments.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.26

“24. To require printers to send to the Departments of Police copies of all newspapers, magazines, and almanacs printed by them.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.27

“25. To prevent the sale of quinine that is not of good quality.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.28

“26. To regulate the censorship of price-lists, printed notes of invitation, and visiting cards.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.29

“27. Concerning the construction of water-closets according to the removal or barrel system.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.30

“28. Providing for the censorship of the seals, rubber stamps, and cards of private individuals and business corporations.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.31

“29. To regulate begging for ecclesiastical institutions and for the holy places in Palestine.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.32

“30. To regulate the sale by apothecaries of certain ‘cosmetics’—namely, soap, starch, brilliantine, tooth-brushes, and insect powder.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.33

“These are only a few of the countless thousands of orders, directions, and regulations that come within the jurisdiction of the imperial police. Of course they are not all carried into effect. The enforcement of such a multitude of prohibitions and restrictions, affecting every province of human life, is beyond the power of any one man or any set of men; but whether they are enforced or not, they operate constantly as a bar to individual enterprise, a network to restrain every free impulse, and a clog upon all human activity.AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.34

“It is difficult for Americans to realize that such relations can exist between the people of a country and the Government as those shown by these circulars to exist in Russia. Imagine a governor of New York State issuing an order requiring all the citizens of that State to send in their seals, rubber stamps, and visiting cards for censorial supervision. Or imagine a Postmaster-General writing a circular letter to the governors of all the States prescribing rules for the regulation of the sale of soap, starch, brilliantine, tooth-brushes, and insect powder? Such an extension of the powers of the Government is to us almost inconceivable, both on account of its tyranny and on account of its preposterous absurdity; and yet such regulations are not regarded in Russia as anything extraordinary, and one sometimes finds the police engaged in work that is even more remarkable than the regulation of the sale of tooth-brushes and insect powder. I have in my possession the original report of a Russian police pristav, written upon a printed form, in which the officer notifies his superior that, in compliance with instructions of such and such a date, he has called upon such and such persons, who are named, and has ‘admonished’ them that they must partake of the Holy Communion, ‘upon penalty of an administrative calling to account [pod opasenient v’ protivnom sluchae kazennaho vziskania]. This document bears in capital letters at the top of the first page the words, ‘Ukase [oo-kaz] of his Imperial Majesty the Autocrat of all the Russias: In the newspaper Sibir (See-beer) for July 10, 1883, it is stated, as a matter of news, that the police authorities of the city of Irkutsk have just received orders to admonish all persons who have been neglectful of religious duty, and to oblige them to partake of the sacrament. The use of the police power as a means of compelling indifferent or backsliding Christians to partake of the Holy Communion-the sending of an armed man in a blue uniform to drag another man to the table of the Prince of Peace, and to compel him to eat and drink the symbols of the broken body and shed blood of Christ-is something that has not often been seen, I think, outside of Russia, since the Dark Ages.”AMS June 5, 1889, page 147.35

A few words only are necessary to show that this very state of things must exist in this country, if the National Reform Association, the American Sabbath Union, and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, succeed in carrying out their (ir)religious designs. All of these associations heartily indorse Mr. Blair’s proposed amendment to the Constitution, which requires that the principles of the Christian religion be taught in the public schools. It has already been shown in these columns that the adoption of that amendment would require that text-books on religion be issued, and that both text-books and teachers should be in harmony with the standard of religion that would be recommended by the ecclesiastical authorities. But when that is done it will be necessary that a strict watch should be kept to see that no other text-book is brought in; and to see that no teacher presumes to inculcate any ideas of his own, that may be different from the established religion.AMS June 5, 1889, page 148.1

The individuals who will have this matter in charge may not be called police, but their duties will be exactly such as are defined in the articles above numbered one, twenty, and twenty-two. They will have to regulate religious instruction in secular schools. They will have to note if any books and plans of instruction are used that are not approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, and they will have to oversee the meetings of school-teachers to guard against the introduction of anything in their discussions that shall differ in any way from the standard of religion set by those ecclesiastical authorities. In short, they will have to see that religion is not discussed at all; for it must be obvious to any thinking person that when the State, having taken counsel of the elders, prescribes the religion for its citizens, religious discussion is at an end. School-teachers will have no business to question the text-books, and they will not dare presume to make any aIteration. If anything different is to be taught, it will have to be decided upon by the ecclesiastical authorities of the Nation, just as in the days of old in Europe, no new thing can be even mentioned in the school unless a new council has passed upon it. When the council shall have decided upon what shall be taught the people, the school-teachers and ministers of low degree will have simply the duty of handing to the people that which has been given to them by their superiors.AMS June 5, 1889, page 148.2

Again, the enactment of a strict national Sunday law will require that the powers of the police be very greatly magnified. Indeed, the Sunday law is often called “a police regulation,” showing that the enforcement of the law will rest largely in the hands of the police. Of course the number of police will have to be greatly increased in order that they may keep an oversight over all the people, to see that no one violates the law. It will be their duty, also, as in Russia, to “admonish” people who do not attend divine service at stated intervals. The leaders in the Sunday-law movement openly avow that their desire for a Sunday law is that people may go to church. But as we have before shown, if the mere enactment of a Sunday law does not accomplish their designs, they will necessarily have to amend it so as to require attendance at church. Moreover, Mrs. Bateham has said that what they want is the “ideal Sabbath of the Puritans;” the guarantee to rest and to worship. Now we have before us some of the laws by which that ideal Sabbath was secured, and we will quote them. In Robert Wodrow’s “Selections from the Records of the Kirk Session, Presbytery, and Synod of Aberdeen,” we find the following:—AMS June 5, 1889, page 148.3

“It is thought expedient that ane baillie with tua of the session passed throw the towne everie Sabbath-day, and nott sic as they find absent fra the sermons ather afoir or efter none, and for that effect that they pass and seiche sic hours as they think maist meit.”AMS June 5, 1889, page 148.4

In his collections he says that the session allows the searchers to go into the houses and apprehend absentees from the Kirk. In the records of the governor and company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England we find that in 1629 the first Sunday law in the colony read thus:—AMS June 5, 1889, page 148.5

“And to the end the Saboth may bee celebrated in a religious manner we appoint, that all that inhabite the plantacon, both for the gen’all and pticuler imploymts, may surcease their labor every Satterday throughout the yeare at 3 of the clock in the afternoon, and that they spend the rest of that day in catichising and pparacon for the Saboth, as the ministers shall direct.”AMS June 5, 1889, page 148.6

This is very similar to the law now required by the American Sabbath Union. But that law was found insufficient to meet the desires of the ecclesiastics, and so in 1634 they supplemented it by the following:—AMS June 5, 1889, page 148.7

“Whereas complaints hath bene made to this Court that dyvers psons within this jurisdiccon doe vsually absent themselves from church meetings vpon the Lord’s day, power is therefore given to any two Assistants to heare and sensure, either by ffyne or imprisonmt (aft their discrecon), all misdemeanrs of that kind committed by any inhabitant within this jurisdiccon, provided they exceed not the ffyne of vs for one offense.”AMS June 5, 1889, page 148.8

It worked then just as we have said it will work now. First was the strict Sunday law. Then was the law requiring everybody to go to church, and allowing officers to search the town to discover absentees. In 1782 an act was passed enjoining the worship of almighty God, as an essential part of the due observance of the Lord’s day, and imposing a fine of ten shillings upon any said person who shall absent himself for a month from the public worship of God on the Lord’s day. This statute provided for wardens to enforce the law, and gave them power to enforce it by stopping travelers, and by entering all places where they may find Sabbath-breakers.AMS June 5, 1889, page 148.9

That is the “ideal Sabbath of Puritans.” That is the condition of things that Mrs. Bateham wishes to see in this country. When it shall be brought about we shall have a despotism fully as bad as that of Russia. Mr. Kennan says that Russian police are “a sort of incompetent, bureaucratic substitute for divine Providence.” If the American Sabbath Union and the Christian Temperance Union shall secure their desired ends, we shall have a police who will not only be a substitute for divine Providence, but a substitute for men’s consciences. Is there an American who has any love for freedom? If there is let him protest vigorously against any such usurpation. E. J. W.AMS June 5, 1889, page 148.10

“That Petition Again” American Sentinel 4, 19.

E. J. Waggoner

Since the AMERICAN SENTINEL has shown up so fully the crooked methods by which the Woman’s Christian Temperance and American Sabbath Unions have added signatures to their Sunday petitions, the leaders of these organizations have found it necessary to do something to divert public attention from their course, and, not being able to offer any excuse for the dishonest methods, they have had no alternative but to try to snake it appear that the signatures to the protest were not obtained in a legitimate manner. Of course this does not help their cause any, for even if all the signatures to the protest were fraudulent, that would not make their duplicity any the less; but the charge which they bring serves in a measure to divert attention from themselves.AMS June 5, 1889, page 149.1

Their charge is: First, that the petition was signed only by Adventists. Second, that those who signed it who were not Adventists did so because they did not understand what they were doing. Third, that all besides Adventists who signed it were saloon keepers, who naturally disliked the idea of a Sunday law.AMS June 5, 1889, page 149.2

It needs nothing more than this statement of the charges which they make, to show to what straits they are driven to make it appear that they alone are not guilty of fraud; for one part of their charge contradicts every other part.AMS June 5, 1889, page 149.3

That the petition was not signed by Adventists exclusively is shown by the fact that, according to the Seventh-day Adventist Year Book, there are only 26,000 members of that denomination in the United States; whereas, there were 230,000 signatures to the petition that was presented in the Senate last winter, and as many more have been obtained since. These are not “representative” signatures either. Anyone who wishes to do so can verify the fact that there are 230,000 distinct signatures in the petition that was presented to Congress.AMS June 5, 1889, page 149.4

We have, however, just received a letter from a gentleman in Woodbury, N. J., a stranger to us, which covers every point of the charge which the Sunday-law people bring against those who circulated the protest. It is so concise a statement that we present it in full. It was entirely unsolicited by us, and was called out by the statements of the Western Christian Union, which were quoted in the article, “Is This the Breath of the Puritan?” in the SENTINEL of April 10. Referring to the statement that the canvassers for signatures to the protest had adopted the practice of “button-holing unsuspecting citizens in railroad waiting-rooms and street corners, not a few of whom were unfamiliar with the question,” the writer says:—AMS June 5, 1889, page 149.5

“Gentlemen, I am not an Adventist; neither am I ignorant of this great question now claiming the attention of so many people of this Union. I was one of several who signed this petition against the Blair bill. I was not asked to sign this until the gentleman who circulated it was fully satisfied that I knew just what I was signing. This paper was headed by the pastor of the M. E. Church of this city; next came that of my own pastor, of the Baptist Church, followed by the signatures of several of the prominent men of our city, whose signatures I recognized. I have in my possession a petition upon which I expect to receive a number of names of Christians. All of them will know why they sign it. I do not wish to weary you, but I want to say to you that I am sorry to see those of my own faith persecuting those Christians against whom they can bring no greater charge than that they insist upon having the liberty which God has given every man, and which our National Constitution guarantees. God speed you in this work. I remain, etc.”AMS June 5, 1889, page 149.6

This simple statement meets every point of the charge which they bring against us; and coupled with the fact that every point of their charge contradicts every other point, it certainly ought to put a stop to their attempt at misrepresentation; but it will not. Having started on a career of misrepresentation, and being determined to have a Sunday law, which cannot be secured by fair means, they must necessarily pursue their course to the end. Our desire is to save as many as possible from coming to that end, which will not be simply the securing of a national Sunday law.AMS June 5, 1889, page 149.7

E. J. W.

“Exemption Clauses in Sunday Laws” American Sentinel 4, 19.

E. J. Waggoner

The Christian Oracle of April 25 contains an article from a fair-minded correspondent, upon “License and Sunday Laws.” In it he makes the following reference to one who had previously written to the same paper:—AMS June 5, 1889, page 149.8

“He says that if the Blair bill should pass, and a strict Sunday law be passed, Adventists could obey the law without any violation of their religious principles. True; but if you forbid them doing any manual labor on that day you rob them of one-sixth of their power to earn a living for their families-or at $2.00 per day it would amount to $104 annually. Without their consent, is that American liberty? Suppose you rest on Sunday, and we pass a law to prohibit you from working Mondays; how would that suit you? Brethren, we don’t want a Sunday law unless it has a proviso that those who conscientious keep the Sabbath shall not be prohibited from performing their usual occupation on Sunday. The Constitution is good enough as it is.”AMS June 5, 1889, page 149.9

The writer of the above evidently believes in equal and exact justice to all; but he has not given the Sunday question sufficient thought, or he would know that there can never be any justice in connection with a Sunday law. In the first place, a seventh-day Christian could not obey a Sunday law without violating his conscience. It is not necessary, however, to dwell upon this, since the writer would not have such compelled to rest on Sunday, because, as he rightly says, such compulsion would be robbery.AMS June 5, 1889, page 149.10

But those who have given much thought to the subject, whether friends or foes of Sunday legislation, know that no law can long be enforced with exceptions. We say that it is utterly impossible to enforce a Sunday law that makes an exemption in favor of those who observe the seventh day. Such a thing never has been done, and never will be done. True, there are Sunday laws which exempt observers of the seventh day; but those laws are never enforced. They remain upon the statute books as dead letters. When the time comes that enough people get in earnest to have them enforced, they secure the repeal of the exemption clause. Then they can enforce the law, and not before.AMS June 5, 1889, page 150.1

Take the case of Arkansas as an example. It had for a long time a Sunday law which made an exemption in favor of seventh-day people. But that law was not enforced. No attempt was made to enforce it. Finally some unto quid people concluded that the law ought to be enforced. But they could not enforce it as it was. Why?—Because there was really nothing to enforce. The exemption in favor of seventh-day observers deprived the law of all its force. So they pleaded for the repeal of that exemption section, so that no non-religious person could evade the law by professing to be an observer of the seventh day. There is no evidence that any person had ever done so; but the Sunday-law people saw plainly that that could easily be done, and that to attempt to enforce a Sunday law with an exemption section, would be like trying to trap a fox with two holes to his den. So they stopped up all chance of escape, by securing the repeal of that obnoxious section. Then the law was enforced for the first time in its existence. And right vigorously was it enforced too. Then the saloon keepers had to suffer, didn’t they? Not much. They sold whisky as openly as ever, and were not even indicted therefor. It was enforced against those who had rested on Saturday, and against no others. The National Reformers of Arkansas seemed to feel a special interest in the physical welfare of the Seventh-day Adventists and the Seventh-day Baptists, for they sought to compel them to rest after they had already rested, while others were left free not to rest at all.AMS June 5, 1889, page 150.2

This prosecution went on until public indignation demanded that simple toleration, if not justice, should be granted to those observers of the seventh day, all of whom were good citizens. So a bill was introduced and passed, which granted to conscientious observers of the seventh day immunity from the pains and penalties of the Sunday law. The result was that the prosecution ceased. No attempt has been made since to enforce the law. Surely this is far more than merely suggestive.AMS June 5, 1889, page 150.3

Now a National Sunday law is desired. Its advocates make a great show of liberality, and say that they are going to see that it exempts those who observe the seventh day. The Blair bill, however, made no such exemption. Nevertheless, fair-minded persons are caught by the pretension to liberality on the part of the National Reformers and the American Sabbath Union. But let it not be forgotten that the object of this proposed National Sunday law is to make efficient existing State Sunday laws. But it cannot give efficiency to them unless it is itself “efficient;” and it may be accepted as a fact that it will be no exception to previous laws, and cannot be enforced so long as it makes any exemption of those who observe another day. So the exemption will be allowed to remain only till the law is secured, and when the time comes to enforce it, the exemption will be repealed. That is the way it is done. Exemption clauses in Sunday laws are frauds. They are designed only to delude fair-minded persons into favoring the enactment of the law, and they never serve any other purpose. Let all lovers of justice pay no heed to the voice of the National Reform charmer, charm he never so wisely.AMS June 5, 1889, page 150.4

E. J. W.

May 29, 1889

June 12, 1889