The American Sentinel 5
February 13, 1890
“The District of Columbia Has a Sunday-law” The American Sentinel 5, 7, pp. 49, 50.
TO justify their effort to secure the enactment of a Sunday law for the District of Columbia, the plea is made that the District has no Sunday law; and that to rescue this part of the United States from heathenism there must be enacted a civil Sunday law compelling people to act as though. they were religious, and prohibiting everybody from doing any work on Sunday in order to prevent people from being forced to labor on that day. But this is all a hoax, the District of Columbia has a Sunday law; but for obvious reasons they dare not try to enforce it as it is. AMS February 13, 1890, page 49.1
The way it all comes about is this: The colony of Maryland had a Sunday law, enacted in 1723. When the colony became the State of Maryland the same laws continued. Then when that portion of Maryland was set off which became the property of the United States under the title of the District of Columbia, and subject to the jurisdiction of Congress, the following statute was enacted by Congress:— AMS February 13, 1890, page 49.2
SEC. 92. The laws of the State of Maryland not inconsistent with this title, as the same existed on the twenty-seventh day of February, eighteen hundred and one, except as since modified or repealed by Congress or by authority thereof, or until so modified or repealed, continue in force within the District.—Revised Statutes District of Columbia, p. 9. AMS February 13, 1890, page 49.3
The law of Maryland (October, 1723), relative to Sunday was then as follows:— AMS February 13, 1890, page 49.4
AN ACT
TO PUNISH BLAMSPHEMERS, SWEARERS, DRUNKARDS, AND SABBATH BREAKERS, AND FOR REPEALING THE LAWS HERETOFORE MADE FOR THE PUNISHING SUCH OFFENDERS. AMS February 13, 1890, page 49.5
Be it enacted by the right honorable the lord proprietor, by and with the advice and consent of his lordship’s governor, and the upper and lower houses of assembly, and the authority of the same, That if any persons shall hereafter, within this province, wittingly, maliciously, and advisedly, by writing or speaking, blaspheme or curse God, or deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, or shall deny the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the three persons, or the unity of the Godhead, or shall utter any profane words concerning the Holy Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, and shall be thereof convict by verdict, or confession, shall, for the first offence, be bored through the tongue and fined twenty pounds sterling to the lord proprietor to be applied to the use of the county where the offence shall be committed, to be levied on the offender’s body, goods and chattels, lands or tenements, and in case the said fine cannot be levied, the offender to suffer six months’ imprisonment without bail or mainprise; and that for the second offence, the offender being thereof convict as aforesaid, shall be stigmatized by burning in the forehead with the letter B and fined forty pounds sterling to the lord proprietor, to be applied and levied as aforesaid, and in case the same cannot be levied, the offender shall suffer twelve months’ imprisonment without bail or mainprise; and that for the third offence, the offender being convict as aforesaid, shall suffer death without the benefit of the clergy. AMS February 13, 1890, page 49.6
SEC. 2. And be it enacted, that every person that shall hereafter profanely swear or curse in the presence and hearing of any magistrate, minister, the commissary-general, secretary, sheriff, coroner, provincial or county clerk, vestryman, church-warden, or constable, or be convicted thereof before any magistrate, by the oath of one lawful witness, or confession of the party, shall, for the first oath or curse, be fined two shilling and six-pense current money, and for every oath or curse after the first, five shillings like money, to be applied to the use aforesaid, AMS February 13, 1890, page 49.7
Sections 3 to 9 relate to drunkards and the enforcement of the law. AMS February 13, 1890, page 49.8
SEC. 10. And be it enacted, That no person whatsoever shall work or do any bodily labor on the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday, and that no person having children, servants or slaves, shall command, or wittingly, or willingly suffer any of them to do any manner of work or labor on the Lord’s day (works of necessity and charity always excepted), nor shall suffer or permit any children, servants, or slaves, to profane the Lord’s day by gaming, fishing, fowling, hunting, or unlawful pastimes or recreations; and that every person transgressing this act, and being thereof convict by the oath of one sufficient witness, or confession of the party before a single magistrate, shall forfeit two hundred pounds of tobacco, to be levied and applied as aforesaid. AMS February 13, 1890, page 49.9
SEC. 11. And be it likewise enacted, That no housekeeper shall sell any strong liquor on Sunday (except in cases of absolute necessity), or suffer any drunkenness, gaming, or unlawful sports, or recreations, in his or her house, on pain of forfeiting two thousand pounds of tobacco to his lordship, one half to the use aforesaid, and the other half to him that will sue for the same, to be recovered by action of debt, bill, plaint, or information, wherein no essoin, protection or wager of law shall be allowed. AMS February 13, 1890, page 50.1
SEC. 12. And be it enacted, That every parish clerk within this province shall procure a copy of this act, which the county clerks are hereby required to suffer the parish clerks to take without fee or reward, for which he shall be allowed in the parish fifty. pounds of tobacco, and that the same shall be read four times in a year, viz., on some Sunday in March, in June, in September, and in December, by every minister within this province, in their respective parish churches, between divine service and sermon, on pain of forfeiting one thousand pounds of tobacco for every omission, one half to the lord proprietor, for the use aforesaid, and the other half to him that will sue for the same, to be recovered by action of debt, bill, plaint, or in-formation, wherein no essoin, protection, or wager of law shall be allowed.—Laws of the District of Columbia. pp. 136-138. AMS February 13, 1890, page 50.2
These statutes have never been either repealed or modified by any act of Congress. On the contrary, provision has been made for their strict enforcement. The Revised Statutes of the District of Columbia says:— AMS February 13, 1890, page 50.3
SEC. 335. It shall be the duty of the board of police at all times of the day or night within the boundaries of said police district. AMS February 13, 1890, page 50.4
* * * * * * * *
Ninth, To see that all laws relating to the observance of Sunday .... are promptly enforced; and AMS February 13, 1890, page 50.5
Tenth, To enforce and obey all laws and ordinances in force in the District, or any part thereof, which are properly applicable to police or health, and not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter.—Revised Statutes District of Columbia p. 40. AMS February 13, 1890, page 50.6
It therefore stands conclusively proved that the District of Columbia has a full and sufficient Sunday law. But there is a serious difficulty about its enforcement. Although according to the act of Congress all these laws are of force, they cannot be enforced. The first one—the one relating to blaspheming is clearly and doubly unconstitutional, in that (1) in forbidding a denial of the Trinity it prohibits the free exercise of religion, and (2) it inflicts cruel and unusual punishments. AMS February 13, 1890, page 50.7
Then the Sunday statute being an inseparable part of the act, bears upon its very face the distinct religious features of all such legislation. The Sunday law advocates therefore have not the courage to undertake the enforcement of a Sunday law that stands so distinctly and inseparably connected with the barbarisms of a religious despotism. Consequently they hope to get the provisions of this Sunday section separated from its original and proper connection, by advocating the civil Sunday, and securing the passage by Congress of an act to prevent persons being forced to labor on Sunday. AMS February 13, 1890, page 50.8
By comparing the Blair and the Breckinridge Sunday bills with the foregoing Sunday section, it is easy to see the family likeness. The Blair bill, Section 5, reproduces that feature of the old law, Section 11, which proposes to hire people to sue the man who works on Sunday; with this difference, however, that whereas the old law gave half the fine imposed for Sunday work, the Blair bill gives all the earnings, of the man who receives pay for Sunday work. There is another point in this reproduction of the old law that is worthy of notice; if it is not an intentional reproduction, it is to say the least AMS February 13, 1890, page 50.9
A MOST REMARKABLE COINCIDENCE
Section 10, of the existing law imposes a fine of “two hundred pounds of tobacco,” and the Breckinridge bill imposes a fine of “one hundred dollars;” Section 11, of the existing law imposes a fine of “two thousand pounds of tobacco,” and Section 3, of the Blair bill allows a fine of “one thousand dollars.” Now we find by inquiry of large dealers in tobacco in this city, that the average retail price of average tobacco is fifty cents a pound. Thus the two hundred pounds of tobacco of Section 10, of the existing law, at fifty cents a pound make the one hundred dollars of the Breckinridge bill; and the two thousand pounds of tobacco of Section 11, of the existing law, at fifty cents a pound make the one thousand dollars of the Blair bill! We say again that if this point in the two Sunday bills, now before Congress, was not intentional, it is certainly a most remarkable coincidence; while the other points of resemblance between the old and the new bear strongly, almost irresistibly, to the conclusion that the old law was before the eyes and in the minds of those who originated the two Sunday bills that are now pending in Congress. AMS February 13, 1890, page 50.10
What is the use of the Sunday-law advocates any longer talking about “civil” Sunday laws? Sunday observance is religious and nothing else. It never was anything else and it never can be made anything else. Sunday laws are religious laws. They are laws enforcing the observance of a religious institution. They belong with an established religion. When, in the face of the evidence here presented, the advocates of Sunday laws, either State or national, make the plea that it is only civil Sunday laws that they want, the people will know just what to think of the plea. And, in view of the evidence here presented, when men advocate a Sunday law, either State or national, upon any plea whatever, the people may know just what estimate to put upon the plea, and also upon the men who make it. AMS February 13, 1890, page 50.11
A. T. J.
“The District of Columbia Sunday-law Convention” The American Sentinel 5, 7, pp. 51-53.
THE Sunday-law convention for the District of Columbia, met January 30 and 31, in the Foundry Methodist Episcopal Church, Washington, D. C.—the same church that was festooned December 11-13, 1888, with the names of fourteen million petitioners which they didn’t have. It was not festooned at all this time. AMS February 13, 1890, page 51.1
There were two lines of discussion that were made so conspicuous from the beginning to the end of the convention, as to take precedence of everything else. These two were, the strong favor to the religious Sunday, and the strong denunciations of the Seventh-day Adventists. AMS February 13, 1890, page 51.2
The convention, as advertised, was held in the interests of “the American Civil Sabbath,” but as often as anything was said in favor of a civil day, it was promptly met and contradicted by strong arguments for a religious day and for legislation in the interests of religion and the Church. AMS February 13, 1890, page 51.3
The very first speech made in the convention distinctly named the Seventh-day Adventists, and denounced them as the strongest opponents of Sunday laws, who are spreading literature everywhere, and who are holding conventions and sending speakers throughout the country; and from that moment to the end of the convention there was not one meeting, and but very few speeches, in which the same thing was not kept up, and at times most bitterly. This was so manifest as to create in the minds of many an inquiry to know who are the Seventh-day Adventists? and why it should be that a people who were declared to be so few as to be “less than seven-tenths of one per cent.” could be of so much importance as to occupy so much of the attention of the convention. AMS February 13, 1890, page 51.4
The first meeting, Thursday evening at 7:30, was opened with the reading of Deuteronomy 5:6, and prayer by Rev. A. W. Pitzer. In the prayer he said to the Lord, “Thou hast commanded that one-seventh of man’s time shall be cut off to be devoted to God.” “Bless this Association in its endeavor to bring all to the recognition of God.” And thus the convention was launched in the interests of the “civil Sabbath.” AMS February 13, 1890, page 51.5
The first speech was by Mr. Crafts, who gave what he said were facts as to the origin of the movement to secure a Sunday, law for the District of Columbia. He said that the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, in the endeavor to prevent further scandal in the matter of digging in the streets on Sunday, learned that there was no law to prevent servile labor on the Sabbath. This is partially true of the city of Washington, but as the foregoing columns show, it is not true of the District of Columbia; and the District law is of force in the city. He next entered a complaint of dishonorable warfare, against the citizens’ meeting which had been held in the city to discuss the Breckinridge bill. He laid all this to the blame of the Seventh-day Adventists, and siad [sic.] that the exception in their favor in the Breckinridge bill is “generous to a fault. If there is any fault in the bill it is in being too generous” to those who observe another day than Sunday. He then declared that he spoke “for honorable warfare;” but when requested by a Luthern pastor of the city to allow him to say a few words upon the bill, Mr. Crafts promptly and decidedly informed him that “This is not a debating club,” and that he could not speak in the convention. And when the editor of the AMERICAN SENTINEL, had been denounced personally by name by one of the speakers, and he calmly requested, merely as a matter of privilege, to be allowed to reply to the personality, he was threatened with arrest. And that is the kind of honorable warfare that is characteristic of the American Sabbath Union. AMS February 13, 1890, page 51.6
The next speech was by Hon. Nelson R. Dingley, M. C., from Maine. His was a religious speech throughout. It was for “the Sabbath as God gave it.” It was for the enforced observance of the “Christian Sabbath.” He declared that “the Christian Sabbath is made for man;” and that “where you find a young man who disregards worship and the Sabbath, you find the moral fibre of the young man is weakened”; and that this “is a question that will grow until the whole Nation shall realize that the Christian Sabbath and free government stand or fall together.” AMS February 13, 1890, page 51.7
The next speech was by Hon. James Buchanan, M. C., of New Jersey. He began with a little passage between himself and Mr. Crafts involving certain points in the game of whist, which we do not understand. He then said he believed most thoroughly in the separation of Church and State, but not of morals and the State. He said he is a Baptist, and remembers the evils inflicted upon the Baptists in Colonial days, and consequently he “cannot vote for the Sunday bill for the observance of the Christian Sabbath but can vote for such a bill compelling one day of rest in seven; I cannot vote for it as the law of God, but can vote for it for the good of my fellowmen,” Mr. Buchanan seems to think that the effect of such a bill will depend; altogether upon the sense in which he votes for it. But when the bill is religious in itself, and those who framed it and who work most for it do so because it is religious, and because it is the law of God, his voting for it “for the good of men,” will not in the least deprive it of its religious character. And when the legislation works only for evil and for oppression, the oppression will not be relieved a particle, nor can Mr. Buchanan relieve himself of the responsibility, by any such plea as that he voted for it for another purpose. It is a thing that pleases the leaders in this cause, as much as anything else can, that such men as Mr. Buchanan, and anybody else who can be induced to support it, will work for it and vote for it, for other reasons and for another object than those for which the promoters of it intend to use it. This only makes so much the more certain the passage of the bill. The enactment of the law which puts power into their hands is what they want, and whatever will help to accomplish that is pleasing to them, it matters not what the reason is for which it is done. If Mr. Buchanan really remembers the oppression of the Baptists in Colonial days, he can easily remember that this oppression was visited on them for the same reason precisely that he proposes to vote for Sunday laws—“for humanity’s sake!” AMS February 13, 1890, page 51.8
The next speaker was Rev. J. H. Elliott, D. D. of Washington City. He spoke on “Civil Sunday Laws” from the text, “Sundays Excepted,” as it stands in the Constitution of the United States. He argued for the constitutionality of national Sunday laws, from the precedents of the State Constitutions, statutes and decisions; but betrayed the nature of such laws by saying that the Constitution of Massachusetts omitted the phrase “Sundays excepted,” but atoned for the omission by requiring that the governor shall be a Christian: and further by arguing that when Congress adopted the laws of Maryland, as the laws of the District of Columbia, it adopted the Sunday laws of Maryland. (Yes it did, and see what else was adopted in company with Sunday laws, which fully shows the certain religious nature of Sunday laws.) He closed his speech on civil Sunday laws by the following peroration, “When our ships furl their sails in the harbors of the islands of the sea, we want the Sabbath stillness to tell of the day of rest and of the Nation’s God.” AMS February 13, 1890, page 52.1
The next speaker was Rev. George Elliot, author of “The Abiding Sabbath,” and pastor of the church where the convention was held. The important part of his speech was his denunciation of the chief opponents of Sunday laws as “a little sect of narrow-minded bigots, who have joined hands with atheists, secularests [sic.], and foul-mouthed socialists, to strike down the institution which we are asking the people to preserve, by the vilest methods of Jesuitism and falsehood, by bare-faced misrepresentation and by the deepest intrigue.” This he explained was “only prophetic fury,” and regretted that the time would not allow of his pouring out much more of the same kind, of which he was evidently brim full. With this gentle display of “prophetic fury” the first meeting adjourned. AMS February 13, 1890, page 52.2
The meeting Thursday forenoon was opened by Chaplain Butler, of the United States Senate, with the reading of Psalm 97, and Matthew 12:1-12; and with prayer in which he asked the Lord to “Bless all this work that we may have the God-appointed day, and that the Sabbath may be kept holy. May the President and Cabinet, and both houses of Congress be of one heart with us in bringing about the observance of the day.” And so the work in behalf of the civil Sabbath was taken up again. AMS February 13, 1890, page 52.3
The subject for discussion at this meeting was “The Best Methods of Sabbath Reform Work.” It was opened by Mrs. Catlin, of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, who spoke very briefly. The next was by Mr. L. C. Inglis, of the Maryland Sunday Association. His also was a religious speech and argument throughout. He said that “to distinguish between the commandment of God and the welfare of man was only to make a distinction without a difference.” He said, that first, the work must begin with the Church and that “the gospel is the panacea for all these ills;” and second, must have also the aid of “the restraining power of law, and even this is to be viewed as educative.” He closed with the reading of Isaiah 58:13, 14. AMS February 13, 1890, page 52.4
The next speech was by Mr. Crafts, who began by saying that they were, “trying to meet the Seventh-day Adventists by two methods,” the first of which is “a syndicate of contributors,” through what is known among printers as the patent inside. This is matter written, set up and stereotyped, and then sent out to the newspapers that print that kind of matter. That is a most excellent place to put the productions of the American Sunday Law Union, because hardly one person in a dozen who understands that process ever reads a patent inside. The other “method” is by the publication of quarterly documents by the Union itself. The question was then asked him, “Is it proposed in the minds of those who favor this law, to stop at once all street cars? And is it to run out into and cover all those things which are now done under what is known as secular work. And how is it to be enforced?” The answer was that “the enforcement of the law will be for the commissioners and police. And if they fail to enforce it then citizens will form law and order leagues. Street cars, etc., will fall under the phrase secular or else mercy and necessity;” but the running of street cars is not necessary “because they take more people away from church than they bring to it.” AMS February 13, 1890, page 52.5
The next thing in order was the election of seven additional members of the District Committee and the officers of the District Union. The seven additional members were elected by two, and the officers by three, unanimous votes, and that is all the votes that were given. AMS February 13, 1890, page 52.6
The afternoon meeting was begun with a speech by Mr. Crafts on “The Two War Measures—Sunday mails and Sunday trains.” This was followed by an address—the only real fair-minded, consistent address of the whole convention—by Rev. T. S. Hamlin, D.D., of Washington City. He said, “The law ought not to control the resting of one seventh part of time. But to have an unbroken Sabbath if we want it, and how we shall use it when we have it, these are matters for individual decision. The chief danger to the observance of the Lord’s day is not from the breaking of law, nor from the lack of law, but from the social customs of society. There is growing up a social movement that chooses to spend the morning at worship, and that much in a perfunctory way; and then spend the afternoon in social pleasure. Dinners are given, receptions are held. This cannot be reached by law. It is a matter of individual concern. The law cannot say that I shall not give a dinner or accept an invitation. I do not agree with the constitution of the Sabbath Union. In the freedom of Christianity we are left each one to use the day for his own good. There is nothing said as to whether we shall go to church, or read the Bible, or what we shall do.” “In this District, without law, there is a remarkable observance of the day of rest. People who have traveled much tell me that Washington is phenomenal in its observance of day.” AMS February 13, 1890, page 52.7
The next speech was by Rev. James Stacey, D.D., of Newman, Georgia. This speech was wholly religious. He said, “These are two war measures indeed! Warring against the Church. The Sunday train and the Sunday newspaper are the worst instruments of the powers of darkness.” He likened these to “The kangaroo leaping from his lair, and without any signs of satiety sucks its [the Sunday’s] life blood.” This was exceedingly apt, especially as the kangaroo is a ruminant—eats herbage and chews the cud! He declared that “the commandment was not primarily to rest, but to worship. And as the Constitution guarantees the right to worship, we demand that it also guarantee the time. For what use is the right to worship without the time?” AMS February 13, 1890, page 52.8
The next speech was by Rev. Sylvanus Stall, of Baltimore. His, also, was wholly religious. He declared that “God on Sinai said ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,’ and there is no necessity now that there was not then. From Saturday night at 12 to Sunday night at 12, let the day be so observed.” “If corporations have neither souls nor characters, individuals have both; and if corporations cannot appear at the throne of God, the men who hold the stock must.” “Back of this question lies the voice of the Almighty. It cannot be decided by argument. God has not left this question to human reason. God has declared “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,’ and there it stands, because God has declared it. Right shall prevail. The civil Sabbath shall be preserved. Let those in the Senate and House, who are afraid, stand aside. Let those who stand for God and right and humanity stand, and God will give the victory. It is God’s cause, and it must prevail.” AMS February 13, 1890, page 52.9
The next speech was by Mr. Dewey, of the Knights of Labor, who declared that they “want two days,—one for worship and one for rest”; and (he did not say here but he has,said it before) they want full pay for both days—seven days’ pay for five days’ work. AMS February 13, 1890, page 53.1
The next speaker was Rev. L. W. Bates, of Georgetown, D. C. His speech was also entirely religious, based the Sunday on religious grounds, and demanded it for religious reasons. He calls for the Sunday law because, “Thus saith the Lord. God has told us how to keep the Sabbath. It is as binding on us as it was on Moses. I would deprecate the duty of attending the funeral of one of the members of my church who had met his death while engaged in Sunday pleasure.” AMS February 13, 1890, page 53.2
The evening meeting was addressed by the Rev. F. D. Power, D.D., of Washington; Rev. W. A. Bartlett, D.D.; Hon. C. P. Wickham, M. C., of Ohio; and Hon. Elijah A. Morse, M. C., of Massachusetts. Dr. Power argued strongly for the governmental enforcement of the Christian Sabbath, in return for the good the Church does, and the help it is to the State. He said, “God will not hold that man nor that nation guiltless which despises his grace.” AMS February 13, 1890, page 53.3
Dr. Bartlett urged the Sabbath as a Christian institution, and laws for its enforcement, “because it is the conservator good government.” AMS February 13, 1890, page 53.4
Mr. Wickham declared that “what day shall be observed has. nothing at all to do with this question or this convention. We must keep within the civil bounds. This is a civil act. If we put this in human law, it must be on human ground. It comes within the police power. It has no relation to the religious observance of a day.” He then read from a decision written by Allen G. Thurman, when a member of the Supreme Court of Ohio, to the effect that Sunday laws do not rest on a religious basis; and which, to sustain its statements, cites decisions of Pennsylvania and South Carolina which do rest on a religious basis wholly. AMS February 13, 1890, page 53.5
The last speech of the convention was by Mr. Morse, who traced the Puritan Sunday back through the Dark Ages to Constantine, and declared that it in common with the commands “Thou shalt not kill,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” is “of divine origin.” He declared that to reform the wicked city of Nineveh, Jonah preached to them to “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” And to reform the city of Babylon, Daniel did the same thing. He then said, “Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse: A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day; and a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God. AMS February 13, 1890, page 53.6
“When the street railroad compelled men to break the fourth commandment, they had next to invent bell-punches to keep them from breaking the eighth. Who knows but what if the car-wheels and locomotives had rested on the preceding Sunday that terrible accident would not have happened?” “When, in my grandfather’s day, in Midland, Massachusetts, they begun the Sabbath at sundown Saturday night, the people could go to sleep without fear. Now we have to buy locks for our doors.” And then in a Puritan sing-song tone, he said, “I will stand in my place and vote for any law to prevent the desecration of the holy Sabbath. AMS February 13, 1890, page 53.7
‘Day of all the week the best,
Emblem of eternal rest.’
AMS February 13, 1890, page 53.8
‘If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.’” AMS February 13, 1890, page 53.9
A vote was then taken on instructing the officers of the convention to indorse the Breckinridge bill for the assembly. The noes were as loud and about as numerous as were the ayes; but the chairman got clear of that by coolly deciding that those who voted against it were not members of the convention; and therefore their report in the paper was that the bill “was indorsed unanimously by a rising vote.” AMS February 13, 1890, page 53.10
Thus was conducted and thus was closed the convention held in the interests of “the American civil Sabbath.” AMS February 13, 1890, page 53.11
A. T. J.
“Was it ‘Orthodox?’” The American Sentinel 5, 7, pp. 53, 54.
AT Marshalltown, Iowa, there is a Soldiers’ Home for the veterans of the late war. The ministers of the different denominations in that town hold Sunday services at the Home, in rotation. At least this has been so until lately; but it happens that there is a Universalist minister in that place, and the other ministers, considering themselves to be “orthodox,” and recognizing one another as orthodox, not long since so revised the constitution of the Ministerial Association as to exclude the Universalist minister from membership, and then by a re-arrangement in which only themselves were included, and by which they occupied all the time, they excluded the Universalist minister from preaching at the Soldiers’ Home. In this transaction they had the consent of the commandant of the Home. AMS February 13, 1890, page 53.1
As soon as the veterans discovered this trick there was a vigorous protest. Although a majority sanctioned the arrangement of the orthodox ministers, a large minority were decidedly outspoken against it, and announced through the press, serving notice also to the orthodox ministers, that they “would march en masse to town on Sunday to attend the services of the Universalist minister, taking care to file past all the other churches, just as the worshipers were gathering.” This they declared they would do if the weather would permit. Unfortunately the following Sunday was so very rainy that it was impossible for them to carry out their protest against what they termed “evangelical dictation.” AMS February 13, 1890, page 53.2
Besides this, the State convention of Universalists at Waterloo, Iowa, took up the matter, and expressed their sentiments in the following preamble and resolutions:— AMS February 13, 1890, page 53.3
WHEREAS, It has been published abroad that the Ministerial Association of the city of Marshalltown, Iowa, has, with the consent of the superintendent of the Soldiers’ Home, located at that city, deprived the Rev. T. W. Woodrow, a Universalist minister in good standing and a settled pastor in said city of Marshalltown, from preaching at said Soldiers’ Home at the usual hour of holding divine service there in regular rotation with the clergy of that city termed orthodox, thus practically excluding him from holding any religious services at said Soldiers’ Home; and AMS February 13, 1890, page 53.4
WHEREAS, The veterans domiciled in said Soldiers’ Home have in large numbers requested the services of Mr. Woodrow at said Soldiers’ Home at the usual hour and in regular order with the other clergymen, which request has been refused, therefore be it. AMS February 13, 1890, page 53.5
Resolved, By the Executive Board of Universalist Convention of Iowa, in session at Waterloo, January 8, 1890, that we condemn the action of said superintendent of the Soldiers’ Home and the Ministerial Association of Marshalltown as subversive of religious liberty, contrary to the spirit of the age, and as a violation of the right of loyal citizens of Iowa to worship God after the dictates of their own consciences; and we request the Governor of the State and the State Legislature, soon to convene, to inquire into this act of religious proscription; and we ask that they take the necessary action to secure to all Christian ministers equal privileges in the various public institutions of the State. AMS February 13, 1890, page 53.6
That the president of the convention, F. A. Borner; Rev. J. H. Palmer, of Cedar Rapids; Rev. M. H. Houghton, of Dubuque; and O. M. Barrows, of Marshalltown, be a committee to investigate this whole matter; and if necessary to the securing of our rights, to carry the matter to the Governor of the State, to the State Legislature, or into the courts, to the end that no citizen of our great State shall be defrauded of his religious liberty; and that equality before the law in all matters of faith and worship shall be in Iowa not only a theory, but an intrenched and irrefragable fact. AMS February 13, 1890, page 54.1
This is an illustration in miniature of what would follow the adoption of such an amendment to the United States Constitution as Senator Blair has proposed, to secure the teaching of principles of Christianity in the public schools. And if the “orthodox” would do such a thing as this, where so little a thing is at stake as one preaching service a week in only one Soldiers’ Home, what would they not do when national power and influence were the prizes to be contended for? AMS February 13, 1890, page 54.2
A. T. J.
“A Question of Law and Conscience” The American Sentinel 5, 7, p. 54.
ON Fifth Avenue, New York City, a line of stages run instead of street-cars. Col. Elliott F. Shepard is one of the principal stockholders of this stage company, and has been able to control sufficient of the stock to stop the running of the stages on the Avenue on Sunday; but a move has lately been made to have the commissioners of the Sinking Fund to force the company to run its stages on Sunday on the Avenue. Mr. Shepard is also owner of the Mail and Express, a daily evening paper of this city. January 8th, in an editorial, he plead for the Commissioners of the Sinking Fund not to “attempt to force the Fifth Avenue Transportation Company to run their stages on Sunday.” From the editorial it seems that those who are trying to get the stages to run on Sunday are Hebrew stockholders in the company; because the plea is specially directed to Hebrews. One of his arguments, directed to the Hebrew stockholders, is this:— AMS February 13, 1890, page 54.1
To compel the working of two hundred or three hundred men would not only be a direct violation of the fourth commandment, which both Hebrews and Christians agree is binding upon human con-science, etc. AMS February 13, 1890, page 54.2
When we read this we were led to think thus: Mr. Elliott F. Shepard cites the fourth commandment, and says that it is binding upon the human conscience. When that commandment was given by the Lord on the tables of stone, it was given to the Hebrew people; and the Lord, by three special acts weekly, continued for nearly forty years, kept before the minds of the Hebrew people the day that he would have observed in obedience to that commandment. From that time till this, the Hebrew people have been known as the observers of that day. Now most Christians observe a different day from that named in the commandment: a different day from the one which the Lord himself taught the Hebrew people to observe in obedience to the commandment. These Christians do not pretend that God has changed the commandment; because they print and quote it still as it was written when given to the Hebrew people. Now the question is, Does that commandment, as the Lord gave it, bind the conscience of the Hebrew to one thing and the conscience of the Christian to another thing? Do the same words bind the conscience of the Hebrew to the observance of the seventh day, and the conscience of the Christian to the observance of the first day? Is it a characteristic of law, whether human or divine, in the same words precisely, to bind one person to one thing and another person to a different thing? AMS February 13, 1890, page 54.3
Nor did the Hebrews have any choice in the matter. They were shut up under the penalty of death to the observance of the day which they did observe and which they yet observe. The observance of that particular day was made distinctly binding upon the conscience of the Hebrews. Now, as Colonel Shepard admits that that same commandment, in the same words, is binding upon the conscience of the Christians, how is it that it does not bind the conscience of the Christian to the observance of the same day that it bound the conscience of the Hebrew? Is it true that God is a respecter of persons, and is easier upon the conscience of a Christian than he is upon the conscience of a Hebrew? Does that commandment in the same words bind the conscience of the Christian to do on a certain day the very thing which the conscience of the Hebrew was bound not to do? Is the divine law so fast and loose a thing as that? Is the Lord of law and conscience so loose in his requirements as to conscientious obedience, as Mr. Shepard’s view would make him to be? AMS February 13, 1890, page 54.4
Another argument that Mr. Shepherd uses is this:— AMS February 13, 1890, page 54.5
Hebrews will see that if the company were compelled to run their stages on Sunday then a large force of the drivers and other workmen would lose the rest of one-seventh part of their time; for it would be an impossibility in a community where such a preponderating majority are Christians and the stages to be stopped running on Saturday. AMS February 13, 1890, page 54.6
But if the Christians cannot stop the stages running on Saturday why do they insist that the Hebrews shall stop them on Sunday? Is the conscience of the Christian more sacred than the conscience of a Hebrew? And is it true the majority is to rule in matters of conscience? Is the majority not only to do according to the dictates of its conscience, but shall it compel the minority to conform to the dictates of the majority conscience? This is anti-Christian, as all the principles and the work of the American Sabbath Union are. AMS February 13, 1890, page 54.7
A. T. J.