Rev. W. F. Crafts Against the Editors of the American Sentinel

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS

The President pro tempore presented a petition of 148 citizens of the State of Kansas, praying for the passage of a Sunday-rest law; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 48.5

Mr. Callom—I present a petition of the National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, department of Sabbath Observance, praying for the passage of the law prohibiting the running of interstate Sunday trains, Sunday mails, and military drills on the Sabbath. The petition is signed by 100 ministers of Chicago and vicinity in the State of Illinois. I move that it be referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 48.6

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 49.1

Mr. Collom—I also present several bundles of petitions that I hold in my hand on the same subject, signed, one of them, by 1,766 another by 7,727, another by 1,000, and the fourth by 2,498 citizens of Illinois praying for the same legislation. I move the reference of the petitions to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 49.2

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 49.3

Mr. Cameron presented numerous petitions of citizens of Pennsylvania, praying for the passage of a national Sunday-rest law prohibiting needless Sunday work in the government’s mail, military service, and interstate commerce; which were referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 49.4

Mr. Faulkner presented a petition of 2,591 citizens of West Virginia, praying, for the passage of the national Sunday-rest law; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 49.5

Mr. Payne presented a petition of citizens of Ohio, praying for the passage of a national Sunday-rest law, prohibiting needless Sunday work in the government’s mail, military service, and interstate commerce; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 49.6

Mr. Hale—I present a petition of the same kind, in favor of the passage of a national Sunday-rest law from labor organizations, churches, and other bodies in the State of Maine. I move the reference of the petition to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 49.7

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 49.8

Mr. Sherman—I present a petition signed by 4,745 citizens of Ohio praying for the passage of a national Sunday-rest law, prohibiting needless Sunday work in the government’s mail and military service, and interstate commerce. I also present a similar petition signed by 2,710 citizens of Ohio. I move the reference of the petitions to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 49.9

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 49.10

Mr. Platt—I present a similar petition, which is said to contain 497 individual signatures and representative indorsements of churches and other bodies in the State of Connecticutt. On an examination of the names I find that some mistake has been made, and that they are the names of citizens of South Carolina; but I trust the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler] will have no objection to my presenting the petition. RCAAS 49.11

Mr. Butler—None in the world, Mr. President. I am very glad to see it come from that source. RCAAS 49.12

The President pro tempore—The petition will be referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 49.13

Mr. Farwell presented numerous petitions of citizens of Illinois, praying for the passage of a national Sunday-rest law; which were referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 50.1

Mr. Stockbridge presented a petition of 379 citizens of Michigan, praying for the passage of a national law prohibiting Sunday mail trains and military drills on the Sabbath; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 50.2

Mr. Hiscock—I present a petition collected by the National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, department of Sabbath Observance, signed by 3,147 citizens of New York, and a petition of 627 citizens of New York of like character. I move the reference of the petitions to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 50.3

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 50.4

Mr. Voorhees—I present a petition said to contain 6,755 individual signatures and combined representative indorsements collected in Indiana by the National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, department of Sabbath observance, the Illinois Sabbath Association, the American Sabbath Union, etc., praying for a national Sunday-rest law against needless Sunday work in the government mail and military service and interstate commerce. I move that the petition be referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 50.5

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 50.6

Mr. George—I present a similar petition to the one just presented, containing 673 individual signatures collected in the State of Mississippi. I move the reference of the petition to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 50.7

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 50.8

Mr. Saulsbury—I present a similar petition said to contain 338 individual signatures of citizens of Delaware, which is move be referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 50.9

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 50.10

Mr. Frye—I present a memorial of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, remonstrating against the running of interstate Sunday trains, etc., signed by 115 citizens of the State of Maine. I move the reference of the memorial to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 50.11

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 50.12

Mr. Hoar presented a petition of 3,144 citizens of Massachusetts, praying for the passage of a national law prohibiting Sunday work, military service, etc.; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 50.13

Mr. Spencer—I present a petition said to contain 953 signatures of residents of the State of Wisconsin, praying for the passage of a national Sunday-rest law, against needless Sunday work in the government’s mail and military service and interstate commerce. I move the reference of the petition to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 50.14

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 50.15

Mr. Dawes—I present the petition of 211 citizens of Massachusetts, praying for the same object. I move the reference of the petition to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 51.1

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 51.2

Mr. Regan—I present petitions collected by the National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, praying for the passage of a national Sunday-rest law against needless Sunday work, government mails and military service, and interstate commerce, signed by 565 citizens of the State of Texas. I move the reference of the petitions to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 51.3

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 51.4

Mr. Sawyer presented a petition of 2,552 citizens of Wisconsin, and a petition of 263 citizens of Wisconsin, praying for the passage of a national Sunday law; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 51.5

Mr. Allison—I present two petitions, one containing 2,458 individual signatures, and the other containing 3,716 individual signatures, all signed by people in Iowa, praying for the passage of a national Sunday-rest law, etc. I move that the petitions be referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 51.6

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 51.7

Mr. Wilson, of Iowa—I present a petition signed by 3,220 citizens of Iowa, praying for the passage of a national Sunday-rest law, and a similar petition signed by residents of Page County, Iowa. I move that the petitions be referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 51.8

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 51.9

Mr. Chandler—I present a petition in favor of a national Sunday-rest law, approved by the New Hampshire Sunday-school Association in convention, with the signatures affixed of J. M. Williams, president, and John G. Lane, secretary; also by Alden Youngman and numerous other citizens of South Merrimac, N.H.; also by Rev. W. H. Alden and numerous other citizens of New Hampshire; which I move be referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 51.10

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 51.11

Mr. Riddleberger—I present a petition of citizens of Virginia, containing 1,851 individual signatures, in favor of a national Sunday-rest law. I take it for granted it is the same as the other Senators here have presented, because of the red covering; and I present it recognizing the right of petition; but in presenting it I want to state, what other Senators have not done, my unqualified opposition to any such legislation. I should like for the ladies who send these petitions here to understand that the first thing they would have to do in the way of legislation would be to change market day. For instance, if we mill our cattle in Washington, in order to give them beef on Tuesday we must transport it on Sunday. I should like to know how the Senators from the West would represent that constituents if they were to stop the cattle trains over Sunday at Cumberland, at Wheeling, or somewhere else en route. I ask that the petition may be referred. RCAAS 51.12

The President pro tempore—The petition will be referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 52.1

Mr. Mitchell—I present a similar petition of 355 citizens of Oregon. I move that it be referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 52.2

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 52.3

Mr. Hawley—I present a petition signed by members of the South Congregational Church of Middletown, Conn., and other citizens, entitled “A petition to Congress against Sunday work.” I move the reference of the petition to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 52.4

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 52.5

Mr. Hoar presented a petition of citizens of Boston, Mass., praying for the passage of what is known as the Sunday-rest bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 52.6

Mr. Blair—I present petitions of several bodies, praying for the passage of a Sunday-rest law. Of the petitions the following analysis is submitted by those who desire their presentation: RCAAS 52.7

Petitions from National Bodies.

CONTENTS.

1. Individual signatures	407
2. Representative signatures by indorsements of bodies and meetings:	14,174,337
Total	14,174,744

“Analysis of the latter: RCAAS 52.8

First indorsement is that of the American Sabbath Union, which was officially constituted by official action of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Home Missionary Society of the Baptist Church, the General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church (North and South), and the Synod of the Reformed Church, five denominations whose membership together is 5,977,693. Of the membership of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the indorsement of whose international convention stands second, at least 20,000 citizens of the United States. The Presbyterian General Assembly, North, whose action stands next, had at the time of the indorsement 722,071 members. The convention of Christian Workers, whose indorsement is next, had 450 present when the unanimous vote of indorsement was taken. The Woman’s Christian Tempeerance Union, which comes next, had 185,521 at the time of the vote. The Roman Catholics, for whom Cardinal Gibbons speaks, number 7,200,000. RCAAS 52.9

Deducting for those who are twice or thrice represented, these petitions represent thirteen and a half million petitioners. RCAAS 53.1

At a low estimate there are on the other petitions presented, besides a multitude who are twice or thrice represented, at least enough to make the total on the 13th of December, 1888, a full fourteen millions. RCAAS 53.2

What I present is the petition of the National Sabbath Union of the United States by Elliott F. Shepard, president, and J. H. Knowles, secretary. Their prayer is very brief: RCAAS 53.3

The undersigned, adult residents of the United States, twenty-one years of age or more, hereby earnestly petition your honorable body to pass a bill forbidding, in the nations’ 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 observe another day as will neither interfere with the general rest nor with public worship. RCAAS 53.4

The next is the petition in like words of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, and so throughout, in accordance with the analysis which I first read. I move that the petitions be referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 53.5

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 53.6

Mr. Blair—I have here a petition of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union of New Jersey with 6,000 members, of Indiana 2,500 members, of Massachusetts 6,000, of Delaware 800, of Illinois 9,000, of Iowa 6,000, of Pennsylvania 6,000, of Dakota 1,000, and the National nearly 200,000, praying Congress to instruct the Postmaster-General to make no further contracts which shall include the carriage of the mails on the first day of the week, and to provide that hereafter no mail matter shall be collected or distributed on that day of the week by railroad trains, and to forbid military drills, musters, and parades of United States cadets, soldiers, and marines on the first day of the week in times of peace, as interfering not only with the soldier’s right to the day of rest, but also with his rights of conscience. RCAAS 53.7

I move that the petition be referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 53.8

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 53.9

Mr. Blair—I present also the petition of the National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, Department of Sabbath Observance, the Illinois Sabbath Association, the American Sabbath Union, etc., 492 signatures. This is, however, the petition of that body in the State of New Hampshire. I move that the petition be referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 53.10

The motion was agreed to. RCAAS 53.11

Mr. Blair—I present a like petition of 43 citizens of Washington Territory, collected by the National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and also the petition of 100 citizens or residents of the District of Columbia, collected by the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, for both of which I ask a like reference. RCAAS 53.12

The President pro tempore—The petitions will be referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 54.1

Mr. Evarts presented a petition of citizens of New York, praying for the passage of a national Sunday-rest law prohibiting needless Sunday work in the government’s mail, military service, and interstate commerce; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 54.2

Mr. Palmer presented a petition of citizens of Michigan, praying for the passage of a national Sunday-rest law prohibiting needless Sunday work in the government’s mail, military service, and interstate commerce; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. RCAAS 54.3

Nineteen States and two Territories. RCAAS 54.4

From this lengthy quotation what appears?—Simply that is the article referred to in the Sentinel, the subject was correctly represented, and the substance of the whole matter was given. This is sufficient to answer that charge. RCAAS 54.5

But Mr. Crafts proceeds, and says:— RCAAS 54.6

(13, 14) In the same column and the one following, it is twice stated that ‘only 407 persons actually signed the petition,’ conveying the impression to the readers that this is a statement in regard to the whole petition,—some have so quoted it into other papers,—whereas it was true only of one special lot of petitions, chiefly those endorsed by national bodies, such as the General Assemblies of the Presbyterians and of the Knights of Labor, which were attested, in each case, by the signatures of the presiding officer and clerk only, after which were added a few signatures of such eminent men as General Fisk, President Seelye, and Joseph Cook, who belong to the Nation rather than any one State. The whole list of the individual names, according to Mrs. Bateham’s careful estimate, if arranged in a single column would have measured a mile at the beginning of the last Congress. Professor Jones saw this immense list festooned on the church walls at the Washington Convention. RCAAS 54.7

Mr. Crafts feels injured because the impression has been conveyed that only 407 persons actually signed the petition, whereas he says that it is true of only one certain lot of signatures, chiefly those indorsed by national bodies, etc. In this statement Mr. Crafts has made the matter appear even worse than we did. Let us examine it. The statement concerning the 407 persons was made with reference to the entire petition, as will be seen from the quotation from the Congressional Record. RCAAS 54.8

At any rate, it is a statement concerning the petition to which it is claimed there are over fourteen million signatures. Now there has never been a claim made that there were more than this number of petitioners for a Sunday law; but Mr. Crafts says there was another lot of petitions beside this general summary that was presented by Mr. Blair in which the 407 petitioners are referred to. That is admitting the very thing with which we charged them and which appears from the Congressional Record, namely, that besides presenting the whole number in bulk, they presented them also as smaller organizations, and as individuals. We have never denied that more than 407 individual signatures were obtained, but the point is that these individual signatures were also included in the representative lists. Thus Mrs. Crafts himself helps to establish our charge of fraud. RCAAS 54.9

He says concerning the petitions: “Prof. Jones saw this immense list festooned on the church walls at the Washington Convention.” This is true. Moreover, he and others also saw this immense list somewhere else, viz., in the Capitol building in Washington, where they could examine it more closely than when it hung on the church walls; and what they saw there, appears in the following statement:— RCAAS 55.1

I did see the festoon of “petitions” in the Foundry M. E. Church, at Washington, D. C. I afterward saw them in bundles in the room of the Committee on Education and Labor. And I say that I saw space after space, some of them apparently more than a foot in length, filled with names all of which were written by the same hand. That is to say, there would be a space of say a foot, filled with names all written with the same hand; then there would be a space following, longer or shorter, as the case might be, all written with the same hand, but a different hand from the one preceding or following. I did not take the time to go over all of the bundles, because there were bags full of them; but thus it was with all that I saw.
ALONZO T. JONES. RCAAS 55.2

Mr. Crafts proceeds, and notices the charge made in the article, to the effect that the same petitions were counted twice or more. Out of this charge he makes thirteen slanders, which he lumps together. we quote from him:— RCAAS 55.3

(15-28) On pages 162-5 there is an unlucky thirteen of malicious slanders, each a specific allegation that the same petitioners were counted twice or more. The figures and facts given in the paper itself are proof enough that these allegations are falsehoods. Anyone can see by a few moments’ work in adding up the figures given in the paper, that if the churches and the W. C. T. U. and the workingmen had been counted over and over again, as alleged, the total would have been nearer forty than ‘fourteen millions.’” RCAAS 55.4

If there is anything unfortunate about this, it is for Mr. Crafts, and not for me. I quote again from the article to which Mr. Crafts objects that it may be seen just how the charge was made. I begin immediately after the quotation from the Congressional Record, and requite a paragraph which has already been used, in order to get the connection:— RCAAS 56.1

Now what do we learn from this? Several things, namely: That out of 14,174,744 alleged petitioners for the Sunday law, only 407 persons actually signed the petition. That in order to produce a greater effect, the petitions were presented first by States and Territories, and then in bulk. In that way the strength of the petitions which had already been duplicated, was duplicated again. RCAAS 56.2

But this is not all. We find that the entire membership of the Methodist, the Baptist, and the Presbyterian Churches in the United States is taken to help make up the 14,174,744 alleged petitioners. This was done because the annual convention of those bodies indorsed the petition. A vote by a few hundred people was thus swelled into nearly seven million. Not only so, but by the wording of the petition, every member of those churches was certified to as being “21 years of age or more.” Of course everybody recognizes that as another fraud. RCAAS 56.3

Still further: The entire membership of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, the Knights of Labor, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, is counted on the strength of a vote taken by a few members of those bodies, in convention assembled. Of course the members of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union could, on general principles, be counted as favoring the bill; but as they are Christian women, they of course belong to some one of the churches previously reported. The same is true largely of the Knights of Labor, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. Not only were they represented as favoring the bill, although but few of them had ever heard of it, and many were opposed, but they were represented three times, as we have already seen. RCAAS 56.4

Let the reader compare this with the quotation from the Congressional Record, and he will see that I have stated simply the fact. The same individuals were presented several times over. It is true that no claim has been made specifically for more than the fourteen millions of petitioners, but the evidence is conclusive that at the same time that that alleged fourteen-million-signature petition was presented to Congress, organizations and individuals included in that list were also presented separately, and some of them several times over, in such a way as to try to make it appear that the petition had been indorsed by many more than the fourteen millions. The fraud, however, is so transparent that a simple presentation of it is sufficient to make it fully manifest. RCAAS 56.5

Mr. Crafts proceeds as follows:— RCAAS 57.1

(29-30) Twice on page 163, it is implied that some fraud was perpetrated, because the whole membership of churches petitioning was given, not those above “21” only; but the records quoted show that there was no attempt to deceive. It is impossible to tell how many in a denomination are under 21, and so the whole number is given. RCAAS 57.2

Exactly; that is just what we have said, that the whole number in any denomination was given, whether 21 years of age or less, and all were counted as “21 years of age or more.” He says it is impossible to tell how many in a denomination are under 21 years of age; but it would not be impossible to tell how many over 21 years of age had indorsed the petition, if only actual indorsers were counted. What difference does it make how many in any denomination are under 21 years of age? Why is it necessary to try to ascertain? The petition has nothing to do with such, and they do not need to appear. Neither does it make any difference how many in any denomination are over 21 years of age. All that straight-forward dealing would require would be to find how many over 21 years of age had signed the petition, and if no fraud had been perpetrated, that fact would be shown on the face of the petition. Mr. Crafts is entitled to my thanks for this admission of the truthfulness of our charge of fraud. This admission is the more valuable because it is made in answer to my charge, and in an attempt to prove us guilty of slander in making the charge. RCAAS 57.3

Again I quote from Mr. Crafts:— RCAAS 57.4

On page 165, first column, it is stated that “Mr. Crafts and his associate Sunday reformers went to Sunday-schools and secured the names of children to their petition,“—another malicious slander, the definite proof of which you should demand. RCAAS 57.5

In this, Mr. Crafts appears to give a quotation from the Sentinel, but it is not an exact quotation. To show that it is not, we give the matter just as it stands on page 165 of the Sentinel. It is from an article entitled “Fitly Designated,” based upon Mr. Crafts’ article in Our Day, entitled “A Strategic Year in Sabbath Reform.” After having stated that this indicated a year of trickery and fraud, we said:— RCAAS 57.6

That this is indeed so must be evident to any one who has read the Sentinel’s exposure of the methods of Mr. Crafts and his associate Sunday reformers. They started out with deceit, and with exhortation to deceive, when they requested all public conventions to indorse the Sunday petition by vote, and then to duplicate the strength of the petition as far as possible by securing the individual signatures of the assembly. Then, by securing a few representative indorsements, they counted in whole denominations, thousands of members of which had never heard of the petition. A letter from Cardinal Gibbons stating simply that he personally favored the movement, was forthwith counted as the signatures of 7,200,000 Catholics. Not content with counting in the entire membership of the various religious organizations as well being twenty-one years of age or more, they went to Sunday-schools, and secured the names of the children to their petition, which stated that each signer is twenty-one years of age or more. RCAAS 58.1

It will be seen that this does not say, or even necessarily imply, that Mr. Crafts went personally to Sunday-schools and secured the names of children to his petition, although we admit that it implicates him. We had no positive assurance that Mr. Crafts himself had done so. All that the article says is that such things were done by those working with Mr. Crafts for a Sunday law. RCAAS 58.2

Mr. Crafts proceeds and says:— RCAAS 58.3

A minor but not unimportant misstatement is the attempt to make the heading of an article by me in Our Day, “A Strategic Year in Sabbath Reform,” equivalent to a confession that the year named was such a “year of trickery and fraud.” Apply this philological sophistry to General Grant’s last strategic year before Richmond, and see how false it is. RCAAS 58.4

This is equivalent to a confession that the year named was a year of trickery in the Sunday-law movement. In my article I said:— RCAAS 58.5

The leading article in Our Day for April is an address by Rev. W. F. Crafts, at Mr. Cook’s Monday lecture, March 25, and is entitled, “A Strategic Year in Sabbath Reform.” This is a most appropriate heading for a summary of the work of the American Sabbath Union during the year 1888. It shows that Mr. Crafts appreciates the situation. A strategem is defined by Webster as “a trick by which some advantage is to be obtained. An artifice.” Strategic means, “pertaining to strategy, effected by artifice. Therefore, since, according to Mr. Crafts, the year 1888 has been a strategic year in the Sunday work, it has been a year of trickery and fraud. RCAAS 58.6

Mr. Crafts says, “Apply this philological sophistry to General Grant’s last strategic year before Richmond, and see how false it is.” And this is all he has to say! A most damaging comparison it is that he makes. We never yet knew of any one who professed to conduct war on Christian principles. It is generally understood that strategy—and by this is meant attempts to deceive the enemy—is always allowable in war. No one claims that it is Christian-like. War cannot be conducted on Christian principles. It is opposed to every principle of Christianity. The golden rule laid down by Christ is to do unto others as you would have them do to you; but in war each side continually tries to do to the other side the very thing which they do not wish done to themselves. Gen. Sherman, in reply to a charge that he was not sufficiently careful of the property of the enemy in his famous march through Georgia, replied in his blunt way, that “war is hell,” and that the worse it is made the more successful it is. Let it be noted that the only reply Mr. Crafts makes to the conclusion that the year of Sunday-law work, which he calls “a strategic year,” was a year of trickery and fraud, is to compare it to strategy in war. Are we to understand from this comparison that the Sunday-law movement in which Mr. Crafts is engaged, is as un-christian as is war? It seems so, and the facts already brought out corroborate this conclusion. RCAAS 59.1

Next, Mr. Crafts makes the following challenge:— RCAAS 59.2

I challenge Prof. Jones or Mr. Waggoner to produce before you a single authentic statement made by my authority, or by that of Mrs. Bateham, or by any other person entitled to be called one of our “associates” in the management of the petition, to substantiate this serious slander, the reiterated charge of a “false count,” with “repeaters” and attempts to deceive. The largest petition ever presented to be government needs no exaggeration. RCAAS 59.3

We accept this challenge, and herewith present the proof. The so-called American Sabbath Union, of which Mr. Crafts is field secretary, publishes Monthly Documents pertaining to its work. In the Monthly Document for December, 1888, on the last page, second paragraph, we find the following official statement:— RCAAS 60.1

We ask every religious paper to publish our petition, and every church and preachers’ meeting and religious conference or convention to indorse the petition by resolution, and also, as far as possible, by individual signatures, which duplicate its strength. The Catholic Church has indorsed the petition through a letter of its Cardinal, and most of the Protestant churches by resolutions of their supreme councils; but these indorsements are strengthened by the confirming votes and signatures of local churches. RCAAS 60.2

Here we have not only the official indorsement of the fraudulent methods of obtaining signatures to the petition, but a deliberate official request that those fraudulent methods be adopted. Mr. Crafts, it is true, says in a previous portion of this article, that “when a general assembly has indorsed the petition, the single action of synods, presbyteries, and churches of the same order are counted only as amens, not as new petitioners.” We should call them pretty hearty “amens.” Notice how hearty they are designed to be. The quotation says that these individual signatures to the petition duplicate its strength. Now if a man indorses a petition, he does not duplicate the strength of that petition by saying amen afterwards. If a man casts a vote for an officer, he does not duplicate the strength of that vote by afterward publicly proclaiming how he voted. He can duplicate the strength of his vote only by voting twice; and so the strength of the petition is duplicated only when the number of petitioners is duplicated; and this is what the official document of the American Sabbath Union calls for,—not by getting twice as many persons to sign the petition, but by counting the same persons twice. RCAAS 60.3

In further proof we call attention to Mr. Crafts’ admission already quoted, that because it was impossible to tell how many in a denomination were under twenty-one years of age, they counted the whole number as over twenty-one years of age. He says that “the largest petition ever presented to a government needs no exaggeration.” Certainly the Sunday-law petition needs none, for it is already well supplied; but it does stand sadly in need of some substantiation. RCAAS 60.4

Again Mr. Crafts says:— RCAAS 61.1

No frantic misstatements can hide the facts that this unparalleled petition, in which labor organizations and churches of all creeds have united, has been endorsed by deliberate vote by so many of the labor organizations that it may fairly be said to voice the wishes of workingmen; that it has been endorsed by so many evangelical churches and conventions that it may fairly be said to voice the wishes of all such churches; that it has been endorsed by the American head of the Catholic Church, and so will not be opposed by any of its loyal members. RCAAS 61.2

I have somewhat to offer on this point also. I have had a number of statements from workingmen and from representatives of labor organizations, who emphatically repudiate the Sunday-law movement; but the following statement from Ideas of Reform, of January 1, 1889, a paper published at Broken Bow, Nebraska, and wholly devoted to the interests of the workingmen, is sufficient to show that the petition does not fairly voice the wishes of the workingmen. From an editorial in the issue of the date above noted, we take the following:— RCAAS 61.3

Fourteen million people have petitioned Congress, asking for the enforcement of a Sunday law. This is evidently preliminary to an attempt to unite the Church and State. A halt should be called at once. Religion by faith in God, is good; and no Christian, under our Constitution, is deprived of the privilege of observing Sunday as strictly as he desires. Religion, by law, by force, without conversion, is bad, and contrary to the principles of good government.... The United States Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Our petitioners would in substance say: “Do away with the Constitution, and give us a law that we may imprison or fine every one whom we have been unable to convert to our faith, and who does not give tribute to our support.” Now, if this clamor for a Sunday law, coupled with the Blair Educational Bill—which advocates the teaching of the Christian religion in the public schools—is not an attempt to unite the Church and State, neither was the act of Constantine in making Christianity the recognized religion of the Roman empire. It is hardly time to allow 14,000,000 people to dictate how 60,000,000 people shall worship, in a free country like ours. RCAAS 61.4

Now as to the indorsement by the Catholic Church. “The American head of the Catholic Church” indorsed the petition in the following letter, which was first published in the January (1889) number of Our Day, edited by Joseph Cook:— RCAAS 61.5

CARDINAL’S RESIDENCE,
408 NORTH CHARLES STREET, BALTIMORE,
DECEMBER 4, 1888.

Rev. W. F. Crafts—

REV. DEAR SIR: I have to acknowledge your esteemed favor of the 1st inst., in reference to the proposed passage of a law by Congress “against Sunday work in the government’s mail and military service,” etc. RCAAS 62.1

I am most happy to add my name to those of millions of others who are laudably contending against the violation of the Christian Sabbath by unnecessary labor, and who are endeavoring to promote its decent and proper observance by legitimate legislation. As the late Plenary Council of Baltimore has declared, the due observance of the Lord’s day contributes immeasurably to the restriction of vice and immorality, and to the promotion of peace, religion, and social order and cannot fail to draw upon the nation the blessing and protection of an overruling Providence. If benevolence to the beasts of burden directed one day’s rest in every week under the old law, surely humanity to man ought to dictate the same measure of rest under the new law. Your obedient servant in Christ, JAMES CARDINAL GIBBONS, Archbishop of Baltimore. RCAAS 62.2

On the strength of this letter, seven million two hundred thousand Roman Catholics were counted as favoring the Sunday petition, as will be seen by reference to the quotations already made from the Congressional Record; and Mr. Crafts himself says, in the article under review, that because of this indorsement, the movement will not be opposed by any of its (the Catholic Church) loyal members. This shows what?—That Mr. Crafts is willing to have indorsements secured to the Sunday-law petition in the same way that sheep are driven into a pen. Get one to start, and all the rest will follow blindly, and they will follow the leader as readily into the greatest danger as they will into the sheepfold. So Mr. Crafts is pleased with the thought that loyal members of the Catholic Church will indorse the petition because Cardinal Gibbons did, without any individual choice, or even any thought in the matter. This thing alone is sufficient to show that he does not care whether or not people are individually or collectively in favor of his movement, provided they can by some means be counted as favoring it. All he wants is that it shall succeed. RCAAS 62.3

But did the Cardinal indorse the petition in behalf of his church? We will let the Cardinal himself reply, as he does in the following letter written in reply to a question asked him by Mr. D. E. Lindsay, of Baltimore:— RCAAS 63.1

CARDINAL’S RESIDENCE,
408 NORTH CHARLES ST., BALTIMORE, MD.,
FEB. 27, 1889.

MY DEAR SIR—

In reply to your favor dated Feb. 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, over-worked fellow-citizens, and of the facility which it would then afford them of observing the Sunday in a religious and decorous way. RCAAS 63.2

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.” RCAAS 63.3

I have the honor to remain, with much respect, yours faithfully,
J. P. DONAHUE, Chancellor,
To D. E. Lindsey, Esp., 708 Rayner Avenue, Baltimore, Md. RCAAS 63.4

This shows that loyalty to the Roman Catholic Church does not demand that its members should indorse the petition simply because Cardinal Gibbons did. In this, Mr. Gibbons is more American than is Mr. Crafts. Representative indorsement has not yet been recognized as an Americamn institution. RCAAS 63.5

Mr. Crafts says:— RCAAS 63.6

Promiscuous petitions of unclassified names, such as your people are sending to Congress, are far less valuable than our classified petitions, which show just who and what the petitioners are, in part by the name of the organizations which not by vote, and in other cases by the prefix, “Mr.” Or “Mrs.” Or “Miss,” with the limit “21 years of age or more,” and the “occupation.” RCAAS 63.7

It is true that individual signatures signed by the hand of the person whose name appears, will not count up so fast, nor make so imposing an array, as petitions presented by whole organizations in bulk, included in which are children, who by the petition are certified to be “21 years of age or more;” but they certainly are more valuable in the eyes of those who regard truth. Josh Billings said that he would rather know less than to know so many things that were not so. We would rather have fewer indorsers to our petition than to have so many petitioners who never signed the petition, and who never even heard of it. RCAAS 63.8

Under the head of “Criminal Inaccuracy” Mr. Crafts says:— RCAAS 64.1

The false claim that I am urging the national Sunday Law as “Religious Legislation.” (38-40) On page 163 I am quoted as saying, “A weekly day of rest has never been permanently secured in any land, except on the basis of religious legislation.” The last word should be “obligation,” as correctly quoted on page 161, but even there it is made to mean “law,” whereas it is a distinct reference, not to law, but to its “basis,” in the public conscience. RCAAS 64.2

Here it will be seen that Mr. Crafts makes two charges of slander and willful misrepresentation on the strength of what he admits is a typographical error. He admits that the quotation is correctly made in the same paper, thus showing that there was no intention to deceive. We will quote what Mr. Crafts did say, and the comment, so that the reader may judge for himself what it does mean. At the close of the speech which he delivered before the General Assemby [sic.] of the Knights of Labor, and which appeared in the Journal of United Labor, November 29, 1888, the following question was asked him, as appears in the same report:— RCAAS 64.3

“Could not this weekly rest-day be secured without reference to religion, by having the workmen of an establishment scheduled in regular order for one day of rest per week, whichever was most convenient, not all resting on any one day?” RCAAS 64.4

This was a fair question, and the plan suggested affords a perfect solution of the question, if the claim so often made be true, that the sole object of a Sunday law is the securing to workingmen of the right to rest on one day in seven, in accordance with the requirements of nature. But notice Mr. Crafts’ answer:— RCAAS 64.5

“A weekly day of rest has never been secured in any land except on the basis of religious obligation. Take the religion out and you take the rest out.” RCAAS 64.6

What could prove more plainly that the law which is desired is a law to compel all the people in the land to observe the first day of the week, not as a holiday, but as a day of religious rest? RCAAS 65.1

The point that was made on this quotation was that if a religious institution is legislated upon, such legislation is religious legislation. It can be nothing else. RCAAS 65.2

Again Mr. Crafts comes to the charge, and says:— RCAAS 65.3

The absurd but malicious inference from the above that I favor “a law compelling people to observe the first day of the week religiously,” is almost worthy to be classed with the gross slanders before mentioned. RCAAS 65.4

In his anxiety to make out a case, he makes a charge of slander because we quoted his own words, and another charge from the inference that may be drawn therefrom. He says that the inference that a law is desired compelling people to observe the first day of the week religiously is “absurd and malicious.” He has sworn to this statement, but has offered no documents in proof. Now let us examine a few points. As to the religious observance of the day, I quote from a speech made by Mrs. Bateham before the Washington convention last December, and reported in the Lutheran Observer of December 21, 1888. Referring to the petitioners for a Sunday law, she said; “They are praying that the government will pass a law that will compel the people to observe the first day of the week.” RCAAS 65.5

I also quote from the same report in the same paper the following statement made in that convention:— RCAAS 65.6

The bill which has been introduced makes Sunday the ideal Sabbath of the Puritans, which day shall be occupied only by worship. No amusement or recreation should be indulged in, no mail handled or railroads run except under the pressing necessity, with a fine of from $10 to $4,000 as the penalty for non-observance of the law. RCAAS 65.7

As I said in my article, it is not specifically stated who spoke these words, but they appear in the Observer’s report, and seem to have been spoken by Mr. Crafts, because in the paragraphs before them extracts are made from a speech by Mr. Crafts. But Mr. Crafts says of this report, and of this statement:— RCAAS 65.8

Even this is a manifest falsehood, as it “seems” clearly to be the comment of some reporter unfriendly to the Christian Sabbath, and certainly is not published approvingly by the editor of the Lutheran Observer, nor is the preceding misrepresentation of Mrs. Bateham. RCAAS 66.1

Mark: Mr. Crafts swear to every statement which he makes in the article under consideration. Therefore he swears that these statements which we have quoted were not made in the convention, and that they certainly were not published approvingly by the editor of the Lutheran Observer. Does he know this? and has he the statement of the editor of the Lutheran Observer to that effect? The editor of the Lutheran Observer was present at that convention as one of the officers, and made a speech in the convention. He is still one of the officers of the American Sabbath Union. Now is it not strange that an officer of the Association would allow a false statement concerning the convention to go into his own paper, and make no denial of it? If it was not published with the approval of the editor, why was it not so stated in that same paper? If Mr. Crafts knows that that report is a misrepresentation, and that it was not approved by the editor of the Lutheran Observer, he must have a statement to that effect from the editor himself. Certainly he could not know in any other way; but if the question has been raised, and Dr. Conrad, the editor of the paper, has been appealed to, to state whether or not he approved of it, and has made the statement to Mr. Crafts, why was not the statement published in the paper? In other words, if a statement in the paper has been challenged, and has been repudiated by the editor, why was the repudiation made to a private person, and not to the public who are interested, so that the paper could stand in a proper light? The questions answer themselves. Mr. Crafts never had any such statement from Dr. Conrad. The quotations which we have made appear in a report from one on the ground who was favorable to the convention. Not only so, but they appear in the leading editorial, showing that if they were not written by Dr. Conrad himself, they have his indorsement as true statements. The correspondent’s report appears on another page of the same paper. RCAAS 66.2

Having disposed of this matter, we will make a few more quotations to show that the movement in which Mr. Crafts is engaged is a movement to secure a law to compel people to observe the first day of the week religiously. The Pearl of Days is a department of the New York Mail and Express, and is the “Official Organ of the American Sabbath Union.” It is edited by the Rev. J. H. Knowles, general secretary and editor of publications of the above-mentioned Association. In the issue of May 31, 1889, we find the following editorial statement:— RCAAS 66.3

It is worthy of note that in the discussion of the Sunday question by the secular press, the divine principles underlying the question are often incidentally concealed. This may be unintentional; nevertheless the lesson taught us is most suggestive. We see from this fact that Sunday, considered only in its economical relations, can never be wholly divested of its moral basis. RCAAS 67.1

Again I quote from the Pearl of Days of January 25, 1889, from the full report of a speech made by Col. Elliott F. Shepard, editor of the Mail and Express, upon his election to the presidency of the American Sabbath Union. Speaking of the petition and its indorses, and the work the Union has to do in interesting everybody in the Sunday movement, he said:— RCAAS 67.2

You have to say yes or no—whether you will stand by the decalogue, whether you will stand by the Lord God Almighty, or whether you will turn your back upon him. The work, therefore, of this society is only just begun. We would not put this work on mere human reasoning, for all that can be overthrown by human reason; we rest it wholly on the divine commandment. RCAAS 67.3

Again, in the Pearl of Days of January 18, 1889, the editor gives a brief history of the present Sunday-law agitation, and especially of the origin of the American Sabbath Union. Speaking of the representatives that were appointed by the religious bodies for the purpose of forming such an organization, he said:— RCAAS 67.4

The fifty representatives thus appointed were invited to express their views concerning the propriety of forming a national Sabbath organization whose only object should be to preserve the Christian Sabbath as a day of rest and worship. RCAAS 67.5

And then he goes on to show how the organization was completed. RCAAS 67.6

The Blair bill itself states upon the face of it that its object is to “promote” or “protect” the “observance of the first day of the week as a day of religious worship.” RCAAS 67.7

In his anxiety to make out a big case against the editors of the American Sentinel, Mr. Crafts takes a contributed article,—a sermon that was preached by a Baptist minister,—and adds five to his count of slanders, on the strength of that. The article is a good one, and we would like to present it; but inasmuch as it is general in its nature, making no mention whatever of Mr. Crafts, but dealing only with the general principles of Sunday legislation, and since Mr. Crafts makes no particular mention of it, we pass it by without comment. RCAAS 68.1

I quote again from Mr. Crafts. He says:— RCAAS 68.2

On pages 163-4, there are five misstatements as to the Blair Sunday-Rest bill, most of which anyone can detect by examining the bill as given in the Senate report of hearing upon it. RCAAS 68.3

Surely “here’s richness!” On two pages which he has already gone through from top to bottom, and from bottom to top, piling up alleged slanders in lots of from two to a dozen, he now finds “five misstatements as to the Blair Sunday-rest bill most of which anyone can detect by examining the bill.” “Most of which,” when stated concerning five, means three, or at the most, four. We will give Mr. Crafts the benefit of the largest number. So, then, on those pages, according to Mr. Crafts, there are five misstatements, four of which can be detected by one who reads the matter concerning which the statements are made. What about the other? That, of course, must be excluded. If that cannot be detected by one who reads the statements, how did Mr. Crafts find it out? RCAAS 68.4

Further, if there are even four misstatements concerning the bill, which anyone can detect by reading the bill, why did mot Mr. Crafts specify those misstatements for the benefit of those who have neither the article in question nor the bill to which reference is made? Does he think a thing can be proved by a bare assertion, even if that assertion is sworn to? Is there a court in the United States that would accept as proof an assertion made by a witness even under oath, if he could not substantiate his assertion? For instance, Mr. Doe charges Mr. Roe with having slandered him, and determines to prosecute him in court. So he comes into the court, and is duly sworn, and under oath says, “Mr. Roe lied about me,” and then stops. The judge would ask him to proceed to state where and when Mr. Roe lied, and to give the exact language that was used; and not only so but to demonstrate to the jury that that language was false. If he could not do this, his assertion, even though sworn to, would amount to nothing in court, and he would go from the court-room under the odium of having sworn to a statement which he could not prove. He certainly must stand convicted of rashness, to say the least. RCAAS 68.5

In another place Mr. Crafts says that he has been grossly misquoted in four places, for which he adds four to his list of alleged slanders; but he does not tell his readers what those four misquotations are, nor does he tell them what he is represented as saying, or what he really did say. Therefore his charges amount to nothing. We do not find any misquotations in the pages referred to, therefore we can say nothing more concerning them. RCAAS 69.1

Concerning his statement that “neither the American Sabbath Union nor the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union champion the bill,” viz., the Blair Sunday-rest bill, we present the following: At the hearing before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor. Senator Blair, after reading the bill, said, “We will proceed in just such order as the friends of the bill may desire.” (See page 2 of the “Hearing.”) Immediately following this statement, Mr. Crafts arose and said, “I have been requested by the various societies petitioning for the passage of such a law as Senator Blair’s bill is, in the main, to take charge of the hearing in their behalf.” Then Mr. Crafts proceeded to make a speech, in the course of which he said, “What we ask is that Congress (and here I state the whole proposition in brief) shall as far as the national jurisdiction extends, first among the employes of the government, and then in the wider domain of interstate commerce, prohibit all needless Sunday work.” But this is exactly what the Blair Sunday-rest bill called for. RCAAS 69.2

When Mr. Crafts had finished his first speech, he introduced Mrs. J. C. Bateham, the Superintendent of the Sabbath Observance department of the W. C. T. U., who said, “Honored Chairman and Senators, as representing our great body, I had the honor of presenting to you last winter a petition from nearly two millions of people, asking that Congress forbid needless government work and interstate commerce on the Christian Sabbath. You graciously granted us a hearing, and your honored Chairman afterwards introduced a bill into the Senate covering our requests.” (See pages 21, 22.) Here is direct reference to the Blair bill, by a leading official of the W. C. T. U., who says that it covers the request of that association. RCAAS 69.3

Still further: On page 41 we read the following statement by Mr. Crafts: “We shall now grant to an opponent of the bill, a representative of the Seventh-day Baptists, Rev. A. H. Lewis, D.D., the time which he asks.” Mark this: Mr. Crafts appeared before the Senate Committee, convened for the special purpose of considering the Sunday-rest bill, as a leader of the friends of that bill. He introduced the speakers in favor of it, and when he saw fit, he very graciously gave an opponent of the bill an opportunity to speak; and yet he says that “neither the W. C. T. U. nor the American Sabbath Union championed the bill.” RCAAS 70.1

Still further: At the convention of the American Sabbath Union, held in March, 1888, a committee was appointed to suggest some improvements in the bill. Among the members of that committee were the president and general secretary of the American Sabbath Union. They considered the bill, and brought in a report containing the original bill and also the bill with such modifications as they desired to have. Every one of these modifications offered by the committee tended to make the bill stronger than it was originally presented; so that while it is technically true that the Sabbath Union did not indorse the Blair Sunday-rest bill, it is also true that the only reason why they did not do so was because it was not strong enough to suit them. RCAAS 70.2

I have before me on one sheet the report of that committee. It is too long for insertion in this article, but copies can be secured by those who wish them. RCAAS 70.3

I think I have now noticed quite fully all the specific assertions made by Mr. Crafts, so far as they concern me. I am sorry he stated in his article that he need not be expected to answer to the replies that his affidavit might call out. In this he shows his wisdom; but he would have shown still more wisdom if he had not replied in the first palce, for it has been demonstrated that not a single one of his assertions to which he has sworn can be substantiated. RCAAS 70.4

He calls on the church of which the editors of the American Sentinel are members, to refuse to keep them any longer in membership. He has arraigned us before the public, and says that we might properly be called to account in civil court, but that his lecture engagements for many months to come make it inconvenient for him to prosecute in person. I am sorry that he is so busy. But I will say this: That such crimes as he charges us with do not become outlawed in a few months; conviction can be had many months after they are committed; and if at any time within the present year he can arrange his lecture engagements so as to prosecute us, we will guarantee that he shall be paid as much for his time as he would get were he lecturing, providing he succeeds in securing a conviction. If he will do this, we will consider it as an equivalent for the debate which didn’t come off, and will say no more about that matter. E. J. WAGGONER. RCAAS 71.1