The American Sentinel 15
January 11, 1900
“Front Page” American Sentinel 15, 2, p. 17.
THE chief evil of church-and-state union consists not in the showing of partiality to a particular church, but in the attempt to propagate religion by civil force. AMS January 11, 1900, page 17.1
THERE can be no union of church and state without a union of church and state, any more than there can be a church without religion, or religion without a church. AMS January 11, 1900, page 17.2
A UNION of religion and the state, as distinguished from a union of church and state, is only a broadened form of the latter; and an evil never grows less by spreading out. A union of the state with religion which favored all the churches alike would be only so much worse than a union which favored but one church. AMS January 11, 1900, page 17.3
“YOU cannot have stable government without religion,” we are told; but it seems to be overlooked that religion, when joined with a government subject to change, must itself become unstable; even, as one writer has said, “the football of contending majorities.” No government is unchangeable; and therefore no government can maintain an unchanging standard of morality. AMS January 11, 1900, page 17.4
THE crowning work of God’s creation was not a state, or government, but a man, made in his image; and no greater thing has ever been created since. The Son of God died to save the individual; but he did not die and would not have died, to save any state or government. It is the individual that is of chief value in the sight of God. AMS January 11, 1900, page 17.5
SOME professors of Christianity seem more anxious for a political saviour than for a personal Saviour. That was the trouble with the Jews when they rejected Christ. AMS January 11, 1900, page 17.6
MEN say the Sabbath law of God does not specify a particular day of the week; but in their own “Sabbath laws” they never fail to specify one particular day. Are they more particular than God? AMS January 11, 1900, page 17.7
THE state cannot decree any religious observance, without assuming to be an authority in religion; it cannot assume authority in religion without erecting a claim to infallibility; and it cannot claim infallibility without an assumption of equality with God. AMS January 11, 1900, page 17.8
“The ‘Usual Exemption’ Favored by the W. C. T. U” American Sentinel 15, 2, pp. 17-19.
THE W. C. T. U. has put itself on record, by resolution regularly adopted, as in favor of “the amendment of all State Sunday laws which do not contain the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day.” AMS January 11, 1900, page 17.1
It is certainly of interest to all “those who keep the Sabbath day” to know what “the usual exemption” is, or is likely to be. And there is sufficient history on this subject to give considerable information—history, too, of which the N. W. C. T. U. is a part. For the benefit of all, we shall here sketch this history of “the usual exemption.” AMS January 11, 1900, page 17.2
In 1888, at the request of the N. W. C. T. U. and allied organizations, Senator Blair introduced into the United States Senate, “a bill to secure to the people the enjoyment of the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord’s day, as a day of rest, and to promote its observance as a day religious worship.” The bill met with considerable opposition throughout the country; and of this opposition “those who observe the Sabbath day” were a part. AMS January 11, 1900, page 17.3
To check this opposition, an amendment to the bill was suggested by the N. W. C. T. U., at the great hearing that was held in the Senate Committee room, at Washington, D. C., Dec. 13, 1888. This proposed exemption, which was added to the Blair bill, reads as follows:— AMS January 11, 1900, page 18.1
“Nor shall the provisions of this act be construed to prohibit or to sanction labour on Sunday by individuals who conscientiously believe in and observe any other day than Sunday as the Sabbath or a day of religious worship, provided such labor be not done to the disturbance of others.” AMS January 11, 1900, page 18.2
In January, 1890, again at the request of the N. W. C. T. U. and allied organizations, what is known as the Breckinridge bill—“a bill to prevent persons from being forced to labor on Sunday”—was introduced into the House of Representatives, in Congress, together with one of like nature in the Senate. The blank petitions, which were circulated all over this land for signatures, and which, when signed, were presented in Congress, and in response to which the Breckinridge bill was introduced, read thus:— AMS January 11, 1900, page 18.3
“To the House of Representatives of the United States: AMS January 11, 1900, page 18.4
“The undersigned organizations and adult residents (twenty-one years of age or more) of the United States hereby earnestly petition your honorable body to pass a bill forbidding in the United States mail and military service, and in interstate commerce, and in the District of Columbia and the Territories, all Sunday traffic and work, except works of religion, and works of real necessity and mercy, and such private work by those who religiously and regularly observe another day of the week by abstaining from labor and business, as will neither interfere with the general rest are with public worship.” AMS January 11, 1900, page 18.5
In response to this petition, the Breckinridge bill, as originally introduced, bore this exemption,— AMS January 11, 1900, page 18.6
“Provided, however, that this provision of this act shall not be construed to apply to any person or persons who conscientiously believe in and observe any other day of the week than Sunday as a day of rest.” AMS January 11, 1900, page 18.7
And this exemption was especially claimed by the W. C. T. U. as that which they had “given.” AMS January 11, 1900, page 18.8
Another item in this connection is the fact that the same Dr. W. F. Crafts who helped the N. W. C. T. U. at Seattle in framing and adopting this substitute resolution, was also the chief aid of the N. W. C. T. U. in framing, introducing, and working for the adoption of the Blair Sunday bill and the Breckinridge bill; and he was their chief aid in circulating, securing signatures to, and presenting, the petitions that brought forth the Breckinridge bill; and it was he who was also the chief instrument in framing all these proposed exemptions. AMS January 11, 1900, page 18.9
These examples, therefore, give a very fair idea of what is meant by the phrase “the usual exemption,” in the resolution adopted by the late N. W. C. T. U. convention. This is so because the persons concerned with the framing of this resolution are, and measure at least, the identical persons who framed all these exemption clauses. AMS January 11, 1900, page 18.10
Now, let any one examine carefully every one of these exemption clauses, and see how much real exemption “the usual exemption” “gives” to “those who keep the Sabbath day.” The first one requires that whoever shall be exempted must “conscientiously believe in and observe” another day than Sunday as the Sabbath. And even then it is distinctly declared that this law shall not be construed “to sanction labor on Sunday by individuals who conscientiously believe in and observe any other day than Sunday as the Sabbath as a day of religious worship.” And, further, that when this labor is done without the “sanction” of the law, it must “be not done to the disturbance of others.” AMS January 11, 1900, page 18.11
The actual reading of the exemption clause in the Breckinridge bill is that the law “shall not be construed to apply to any person or persons who conscientiously believe in and observe any other day of the week than Sunday as a day of rest.” But the petition, in response to which that bill, with its exemption, was framed, shows the intent of the clause in the minds of those who originated it; and “the intention of the lawmaker is the law.” AMS January 11, 1900, page 18.12
Now notice how all-embracing that exemption is, in the petitions that were present, which called forth the exemption: nothing is excepted “except works of religion, and works of real necessity and mercy, and such private work by those who religiously and regularly observe another day of the week by abstaining from labor and business, as will neither interfere with the general rest NOR with public worship.” Nobody can have the benefit of the exemption from the requirements of the Sunday laws unless he meets all the strict requirements, both public and private. In short, the exemption clauses which they have framed deliberately propose to take cognizance and jurisdiction of the whole religious and conscientious life, public and private, of those who observe any other day than Sunday. And such is the nature of “the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day.” AMS January 11, 1900, page 18.13
Nor is that all. It is found in actual practise that this “usual exemption” is not exempt; as indeed it was never intended that it should, and as its very nature prohibits its doing. In the late convention at Seattle, when this was before the N. W. C. T. U. for discussion, Mrs. Tomlinson, national superintendent of parlor meetings, told a convention that:— AMS January 11, 1900, page 18.14
“New Jersey has a law which makes an exception of those keeping the seventh day as the Sabbath; and yet in my own State this last winter the seventh-day people who had observed the day strictly, and who opened their stores or places of business in a quiet manner upon the first day the week, were visited by the chief of police, and told that if they did not close their places of business upon the first day, they would be arrested, ... Therefore in those States where there is an exemption the people are not always protected.” AMS January 11, 1900, page 19.1
And this in itself is in exact accord with statements made on this subject in former times. In July, 1887, there was a joint convention of the National Reform Association and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (not a national convention), held at Lakeside, Ohio. Upon this subject of exemption, in that convention David McAllister of the National Reform Association, who then, and for years, worked hand in hand with the W. C. T. U. everywhere, in national and other conventions (and who no doubt, is doing so yet), said:— AMS January 11, 1900, page 19.2
“Let a man be what he may,—Jew, seventh-day observer of some other denomination, or those who do not believe in the Christian Sabbath,—let the law apply to every one, that there shall be no public desecration of the first day of the week, the Christian Sabbath, the day of rest for the nation. They may hold any other day of the week as sacred, and observe it; but that day, which is the one day in seven for the nation at large, let that not be publicly desecrated by any one, by officer in the government, or by private citizen, high or low, rich or poor.” AMS January 11, 1900, page 19.3
This is sufficient to give to the N. W. C. T. U., and to the public, a good understanding of the nature and operation of “the usual exemption for these who keep the Sabbath day,” which, by resolution, the N. W. C. T. U. has voted to “favor.” Need it seem strange to the N. W. C. T. U. that “those who keep the Sabbath day” will probably not be very enthusiastic helpers in obtaining such exemption? Should it seem to them strange that our co-operation might be found lacking? AMS January 11, 1900, page 19.4
But while, and the nature of things, we can not co-operate in the endeavor to secure such exemption, we will constantly do our best, in a perfectly plain but altogether respectful way, to make plain to the W. C. T. U. just what is involved in Sunday laws, whether with or without exemptions. That is why we write this. We gladly do the women of the W. C. T. U. the justice to say that we believe they do not in any degree realize the true character of Sunday laws whether with or without exemption; and that they do not discern the true issue that is before the N. W. C. T. U. We believe that if they did discern this, they would be far from doing what they have done, and are doing, in that connection. We hope that they will candidly consider the whole mighty question that is now before them. AMS January 11, 1900, page 19.5
A. T. J.
“Government by a ‘Single Mind’” American Sentinel 15, 2, pp. 19, 20.
SOME time ago, in these columns, we queried as to how long this country could remain a republic, a government of the people by the people, and at the same time work hand-in-hand with two monarchies in world affairs. AMS January 11, 1900, page 19.1
In Harper’s Weekly of December 30, 1899, there is printed a long argument by one of the regular staff of the Weekly, in favor of a one-man power in the Government of the United States. The material of the article is derived from the subject of treaties. AMS January 11, 1900, page 19.2
The rider advocates “understandings” rather than treaties with foreign powers. He cites the fact that treaties which had been arranged satisfactorily by the executives of the powers concerned “fell before clamor,” or “fell by the refusal of the Senate to ratify;” and then says:— AMS January 11, 1900, page 19.3
“Perhaps this bit of our recent history illustrates as well as any other the reason why an American executive, bent on accomplishing an object through co-operation with a foreign power, would prefer an unformulated understanding rather than face the almost certain defeat involved in the submission of the treaty to the Senate.” AMS January 11, 1900, page 19.4
But when it is the government of the people why should an American executive be bent on accomplishing an object in himself alone with the voice of the people or in spite of the voice of the people? In such case he is not an executive of the government of the people, but the executive of his own will. He alone becomes the government; and whatsoever does not conform to his personal will can have no place. And that is nothing but the advocacy of a one-man power. AMS January 11, 1900, page 19.5
The National Constitution has settled it that treaties shall be made “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” By the Constitution the executive has no power at all in any matter of treaties, apart from the Senate; and he has no right to have or to exercise any will of his own in the subject. Here are the words: “He [the executive] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur.” If the Senate advises contrary, or refuses to consent, that is nothing to him: he has no further responsibility in the matter—provided the he cares anything for the Constitution, provided that he cares anything for the voice of the people through their chosen representatives, provided he recognizes government of the people by the people. But if he cares nothing for all this, and is “bent on accomplishing an object” himself according to his own will, Constitution or no Constitution, Senate or no Senate, people or no people, then if the Senate refuses consent, he will resent it and do the thing anyhow, by agreement or understanding; or if he thinks he has reason to suppose that the Senate will not consent, then he will execute his own will through an understanding without giving the Senate any chance at all, either to advise or consent. And this is only government by one—a one-man power. AMS January 11, 1900, page 19.6
If the quotations already given are not sufficient to convince that a one-man power here is thus openly demanded, then read the following:— AMS January 11, 1900, page 20.1
“The participation of the Senate in the treaty-making function is the cause of the difficulties; and while the weakness has thus far wrought no serious harm, it is something to be gravely considered if we take a place among the Asiatic powers... The fact is that the power to make treaties, if we are to enter into a course of national progression, or retrogression—call it what you will, but involving those close mutual relations which Jefferson described as ‘entangling alliances’—must include the power to make conventions quickly and secretly and the power to abide by them. Moreover, it is essential that the single mind with which our Government deals must be met by a single mind on our side.... In short, if foreign alliances are to become essential to us, we must set up a power that can make treaties quickly, keep them secret if necessary, and abide by them to the end.” AMS January 11, 1900, page 20.2
All of that is certainly plain enough to be grasped by anybody. And surely the thing advocated as “essential” is rather startling, even though it be the inevitable accompaniment of any effort to have a republic to work hand-in-hand with monarchies. Yet startling as it is that this thing should be thus openly advocated, at so early a stage in the new career, it is yet more startling to be authoritatively informed that not only is this thing advocated by this writer, but it is actually being studiously put into practise by the present administration. More than a month ago Washington correspondence gave to the country the information that it was not expected that the agreement between the United States and the other powers concerning China will be arranged in “a general and formal treaty;” and for the reason that— AMS January 11, 1900, page 20.3
“It would be extremely difficult to frame any such convention so as to secure the approval of the United States Senate without a protracted struggle, which might disclose disagreeable weaknesses in the Government’s policy, and besides, the effort would be sure to arouse opposition from the considerable element in the United States that is unalterably opposed to any sort of foreign entanglements.” AMS January 11, 1900, page 20.4
And that is simply to say that in this matter the national affairs are to be conducted without the people. A certain course—the strictly proper governmental course—is studiously avoided, because it would be “difficult to secure the approval” of the representatives of the people, and because it would arouse opposition among the people themselves, and “might disclose disagreeable weaknesses in the Government’s policies.” That is to say, because the administration doubts that the approval of the people would be given, the thing shall be done anyhow, and therefore without its coming within reach of the people at all. AMS January 11, 1900, page 20.5
This is nothing else than in principle, and for the occasion even in practise, the abandonment of government of the people by the people. People are informed that since the administration fears that the people will not approve its policies, the administration will execute its policies in the anyhow; that the administration cannot trust the people, and therefore the people shall not be consulted. AMS January 11, 1900, page 20.6
This is precisely the course of the republic of Rome over again. First it was a government of the people by the people. Then it was government by a few, which could not trust the people. Then, as in a little while it came about that these few cannot trust one another, it became a government by one; and that one the most powerful. And how rapidly this later great republic is running the course of that ancient great republic! AMS January 11, 1900, page 20.7
It is true that, so far, this is all said and done in connection with treaties. But how long will the practise be carried on in that connection before it shall be extended to other things? The principle once adopted, when shall be set the limits to its application? A. T. J. AMS January 11, 1900, page 20.8
“Why the Sentinel Protests” American Sentinel 15, 2, pp. 20, 21.
THE Declaration of Independence was put forth by the American Colonies to Great Britain and to the world, as a notification of and justification for their absolute independence. AMS January 11, 1900, page 20.1
That Declaration spoke for all people on the earth, as was necessary that it should do. The American colonies did not assert their independence because of any characteristic or circumstances peculiar to themselves, but because “all men are created equal,” and because “to preserve these rights [of all men] governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The colonists claimed this for themselves only on the ground that it was self-evidently due to all. AMS January 11, 1900, page 20.2
Now the United States has denied to another people the right of independence; this nobody disputes or can dispute, for the record of it has been in every issue of the daily press for over a year. And as it is true that the Declaration of Independence asserted the right of all people to independence, and that the colonies claimed that right for themselves only under the assertion of it for all, just so true is it that the United States has now repudiated the Declaration of Independence and surrendered its own claim made therein to such freedom. AMS January 11, 1900, page 20.3
And as surely as the United States maintains its present course in this respect, so surely must follow that the doctrine of the equal rights of all men and of the justice of government by consent of the governed, will be relegated to the limbo of outgrown traditions, as one of no binding authority or practical importance in this day. AMS January 11, 1900, page 20.4
But upon this doctrine the AMERICAN SENTINEL has stood from the first day of its publication. That has been its foundation; and upon no other foundation could it have made the appeals that it has for justice and religious freedom. Upon no other can it make such appeals now or in time to come. AMS January 11, 1900, page 20.5
And this is why the AMERICAN SENTINEL has from the first protested against the course of the nation in setting aside the doctrines it put forth to the world in 1776. And surely, when the very foundation on which it stands is being swept from under its feet, the SENTINEL can protest against it without meriting the charge of having “gone into politics.” AMS January 11, 1900, page 21.1
When the doctrine of the equal rights of all men shall be no longer be held as true by the American people; when appeal for justice can no longer be made upon this that is the one ground common to all—then further appeal to American principles against religious tyranny will be useless, and the mission of the AMERICAN SENTINEL will have reached its end. AMS January 11, 1900, page 21.2
“Back Page” American Sentinel 15, 2, p. 32.
SOME people seem to have the idea that the Sabbath law of God commands them to see that their neighbors keep the Sabbath, whether they themselves do so or not. They are willing to break the Sabbath themselves, if need be, in order to make others keep it. And indeed, it is impossible to enforce a Sabbath law without breaking the Sabbath to do it. AMS January 11, 1900, page 32.1
THE Sunday laws of the State contain—with few exceptions—” usual exemption” for observers of the seventh day; which is supposed to make such laws unobjectionable. But when analyzed, this “exemption” is found to be really a condemnation of the Sunday law on the ground of consistency. If the law is one that interferes with conscience or with rights, it has no good reason to exist; and if it does not interfere in this way, why exempt any class from its penalties? But as we show elsewhere in this issue, this “usual exemption” clause is not to be taken at its “face value.” AMS January 11, 1900, page 32.2