The Captivity of the Republic

“SUNDAY CLOSERS LIKELY TO WIN

“Washington, January 13.-It is anything but an encouraging prospect which the friends of Sunday opening of the World’s Fair have before them. To-night it looks very much as if the Durborow resolution would be permitted to die a natural death in the Columbian Committee. A canvass of that committee fails to show a majority in favor of reporting it, and while it is not positively known that a majority is against it, all the signs point in that direction. The hearings which have taken place during the last four days have greatly hurt the Sunday-opening cause. Not that the advocates of closing have had the best of the argument, for they have not; but the publicity given to the matter throughout the country by this agitation has brought down upon Congress an avalanche of protests and appeals, from religious people and church organizations all over the country. CAR 52.2

“The churches and the ministers are at work again quite as earnestly as they were a year ago, and with equal effectiveness. While there was no doubt a month ago that if a vote could have been taken upon the question of Sunday opening at once, a comfortable majority would have been found in both houses of Congress for opening, it is not now likely that the Durborow resolution can be carried through either body. CAR 52.3

“Of the twelve members of the Columbian Committee of the House only four can be relied upon to report favorably the Durborow resolution. General Cogswell, who was counted upon till to-day, is now wavering. The Methodist Episcopal Church has brought some influence to bear upon him which he finds it difficult to resist. The odds are decidedly against the resolution ever getting into the House, and even if it shall be reported, no one can find a majority in its favor. The trouble is that a large number of members who believe in Sunday opening on principle and as a matter of right are too timid to vote their convictions in the face of the organized opposition from the churches and ministers. These statesmen argue that the men who want the Fair open on Sunday are reasonable men, who will not permit their judgment or their votes to be affected by failure to get what they want. While on the other hand the church people who are for Sunday closing will, if their wishes are thwarted, lose their tempers, and at the next election, make trouble for those who vote against them. CAR 52.4

“This sort of cowardice or caution, combined with the fact that the ministers who are making Sunday closing a sort of stock-in-trade have no hesitancy about bulldozing their congressional representatives or anyone else they can get hold of, offers an explanation of the changed condition of affairs with reference to this question.” CAR 52.5

Now, generally speaking, the people who want the Fair opened on Sunday are not church people. There are, it is true, a few ministers and some laymen who favor Sunday opening; but even these are not considered by the great body of the churches to be “orthodox.” So that practically and generally speaking, the people who want the Fair opened on Sunday are not church people at all. Now it is argued, that these people “are reasonable men who will not allow their judgment or their votes to be affected by failure to get what they want in this thing, while on the other hand, if the church people do not get what they want, and have their way, they “will lose their tempers” and “make trouble” for those who refuse to yield to their demands. What is this, then, but to say, and to say truly, that the church people are worse than are the people who do not belong to the church? The people who do not belong to the church are reasonable men who will not lose their tempers. The church people will lose their tempers and make trouble. The people who do not care for Sunday and who do not belong to the church, will behave themselves and keep civil. The church men, the worshipers of Sunday, will lose their tempers and bulldoze everybody that they can bulldoze. CAR 53.1

Here are some words from Senator Quay, which are of importance, both because of the statements which they make and because he is the one who introduced this question in the Senate. The Pittsburg Leader, Jan. 2, 1893, published in an editorial the following from the Senator:— CAR 53.2

“Congress will not reverse its action. It is not a question at all about whether the opening of the Fair on that day will or will not benefit. But if Congress were to reverse its action, it could have no other meaning than that the United States, the greatest and most prosperous nation on this earth, had declared officially through its chosen representatives in favor of desecrating the Sabbath and thus breaking one of the commandments. And Congress will not do that.” CAR 53.3

And after this hearing had been held, and the arguments had been made for opening the Fair, it was rumored that Senator Quay had brought up the subject in a Republican caucus, with the view of having a resolution adopted opposing Sunday opening. The correspondent of the Chicago Herald saw the Senator and asked him about it, and received answer as follows:— CAR 54.1

“The question was not brought up in the caucus, hence I have no hesitancy in talking about it. I did confer with a number of Republican senators as to the expediency of adopting measures to kill the proposed bill or resolution. I am free to say that the resolution opening the World’s Fair on Sunday cannot pass the Senate. CAR 54.2

“I do not care what they do in the House, and I do not care if a majority of the Senate is in favor of it. It cannot pass. I and other senators will stand here and fight it to the bitter end, and a majority even cannot pass it without adopting a cloture rule. I do not believe that a majority of the Senate are in favor of the resolution; in fact, I think the majority against it is as large as the majority in favor of the condition which we imposed in voting the appropriation. But even if the majority is on the other side, the resolution will not be permitted to pass the Senate without the adoption of a rule cutting off the right of debate and forcing a vote. The people of Chicago may as well give up this fight. They can’t win it.”—Chicago Herald, Jan. 19, 1893. CAR 54.3

Thus one man proposes to, and if occasion offers, undoubtedly will, hold the government, and the whole nation even, to a wrong course, even though a majority of both houses of Congress and of the whole nation call for the opposite. And this at the bidding of an arrogant priesthood. What, then, becomes of the principle of majority rule? It is gone. And when the minority rules, then what becomes of government of the people. That is gone too. This is true. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, is gone. And in its place there stands the doctrine and the practice, of the subjection of the people, by the churches, and for the churches. This demonstrates again the complete revolution that has been accomplished in this transaction. CAR 54.4

A statement from Representative Reilly, of Pennsylvania, in the same dispatch to the Herald, is also worth inserting, for the reason (?) which he gives. It is as follows:— CAR 55.1

“The present agitation, if continued, can only result in injury to the Fair. Attempts to have the law repealed only result in stirring up animosity toward the Fair and creating antagonism on the part of the church people. They can do the Fair much harm if they decide to carry out the threats they have already made, and I think the friends of the Exposition who favor Sunday opening would act wisely in ceasing their efforts.” CAR 55.2

Representative Houk, however, has set forth this point most fully and most strongly, in a letter to President Higinbotham of the Columbian Exposition, printed in the Chicago Tribune, Feb. 5, 1893. The letter is too long to reprint here, as it fills about a column and a half of solid brevier type. He first cites an amendment which he had prepared, to open the Fair on Sunday afternoons only, with no traffic allowed within the grounds, and with provision made for “such services as shall be prescribed by the proper authorities of said Exposition; embracing sacred music, sermons, without preference of denomination or sect, and devotional exercises in conformity with the religious ceremonies, practices, customs, and the ritual of any of the great religions prevailing among mankind; and also embracing addresses upon natural religion and the physical sciences, as illustrating the wisdom, power, and goodness of God in the creation and upon the progress of human civilization.” CAR 55.3

Next he declares:— CAR 55.4

“It is my deliberate conviction that Congress was and is without any constitutional power or authority whatever to impose such a condition upon the grant of the appropriation from a religious point of view, which now seems to be the main if not the only ground insisted upon by those who so strenuously contend for its retention.” CAR 55.5

He then says that the action of Congress imposing the Sunday-closing condition is only defensible, “if at all,” upon the ground of the “police power of the government.” But even if it were defensible at all, it could not be defended upon this ground after having been enacted upon distinctively and positively declared religious grounds and no other. “The intent of the law-maker is the law.” And no act can ever be justly defended upon grounds different from those upon which it was enacted. CAR 55.6

Next he says, it would be perfectly proper for Congress to revoke the condition and release the Exposition authorities from the obligation, if it saw fit to do so; and then he states the point which we are here considering, and which we print in full, as follows:— CAR 56.1

“At this point I now beg to call your attention to certain existing facts. A most extensive religious agitation has been made to prevail all over the country, upon this question. Concerted action has been taken by the clergy and upon the question, as presented by them to their congregations, as to whether they were in favor of ‘the desecration of the Sabbath.’ An entire unanimity of sentiment has been obtained, of course, among the Protestant Christian churches at least, and other large organizations of Christian workers, against the repeal of the condition requiring the closing of the Exposition Sundays. CAR 56.2

“From the nature, extent, and character of this opposition, based, as I think it is, upon an erroneous, though conscientious sentiment, rather than upon a deliberate and rational judgment, it occurs to me that in case it were possible to have the existing law repealed, it might after all ultimately result in serious detriment to the final success of the Exposition. CAR 56.3

“I am deeply interested in that success, from every point of view-historical, patriotic, aesthetic, commercial, industrial, scientific, moral, and financial. I want to see it redound to the honor of our country, and of mankind at large, as it will to that of the unrivaled community and city, whose energy, intelligence, and liberality have given it the mighty and magnificent proportions it nowhere else on the face of the earth could have attained. CAR 56.4

“I will sincerely deplore that mistaken (as I think) religious sentiment, now seemingly so prevalent, if it shall result in depriving so many thousands of people of the great benefits and elevating enjoyment that could certainly, under proper management, be made to result from opening the Exposition to the public Sundays. But if it shall at the same time have the effect of quieting the fears that seem honestly to exist; that ‘our American Sunday and rest day is in danger,’ and will unite all denominations and sects and organizations in a hearty co-operation to promote the highest and best interest of the great enterprise, the deprivation, serious as it undoubtedly will be, may not be altogether without compensation. CAR 56.5

“It is of the first importance, in my judgment, to the final success of the Exposition that there should be a harmonious co-operation on the part of all the people of the United States in its support. If the present law requiring the gates to be closed Sundays to the public, should be repealed by a vote of a majority in both the House and Senate, which does not seem to me at all probable, and the act should receive the sanction of the President, which seems to be equally improbable, it is certain that the religious element of the country, through all its organizations, would be deeply offended and would array itself in antagonism to the Fair. CAR 57.1

“It is not a question whether such a course would be reasonable or not; and, while such action might be regarded as an exhibition of religious fanaticism, most remarkable under the circumstances, it is nevertheless true that a large number of good, conscientious, Christian people throughout the country, in their excited state of feeling upon this question, would be likely to pursue that course. CAR 57.2

“I am in a position to have reliable information in regard to this matter, and although I firmly believe that the refusal to permit the Exposition to be opened to the public Sundays under the regulations I have suggested, will be a most deplorable mistake, I am also fully pursuaded that the repeal of the existing law closing its gates would array the whole religious element of the United States (Protestant at least) against it. CAR 57.3

“I have thought it my duty to state to you freely and frankly my views in regard to this important matter. I have been, as you know, from the inception of this great enterprise one of its most earnest friends outside of Chicago. CAR 57.4

“The question now to be decided by the management is, whether it is advisable further to urge a doubtful contest upon a matter that is aggravating an already extensive and bitter hostility against Chicago and the Exposition, which even if ultimately successful would be as likely to be fraught with disaster as benefit to the enterprise. CAR 57.5

“The Select Committee on the Columbian Exposition in the House, of which you are aware that I am a humble member, has now before it for consideration and determination the question, whether to report to the House an amendment to revoke the existing condition in regard to Sunday closing or by non-action permit it to remain as it is. CAR 57.6

“With great respect I am, sir, yours truly, CAR 57.7

“George W. Houk, CAR 57.8

“Member of Col. Ex. Com., H. R.” CAR 57.9

These statements from Messrs. Reilly and Houk, both members of the committee, fully confirm the statements of the Chicago Herald correspondent, that the church people, professedly Protestant at that, will cause such mischief, such trouble, and do such damage to the Fair and to the country, by losing their tempers and adopting bulldozing methods, if they do not have their own way, as would not be thought of by people who do not belong to the churches. And therefore for the success of the Fair and the good of the country, the government itself must be surrendered to, and run in the interests and at the bidding of, this most dangerous element in the nation! CAR 58.1

This is precisely the position that has been taken also by United States District Judge E. S. Hammond. In a decision rendered Aug. 1, 1891, the Circuit Court of the United States for the western district of Tennessee distinctly established the doctrine of persecution in behalf of the observers of Sunday, in the following words:— CAR 58.2

“By a sort of factitious advantage, the observers of Sunday have secured the aid of the civil law and adhere to that advantage with great tenacity, in spite of the clamor for religious freedom and the progress that has been made in the absolute separation of Church and State.... And the efforts to extirpate the advantage above mentioned by judicial decision in favor of a civil right to disregard the change, seem to me quite useless.... CAR 58.3

“If the human impulse to rest on as many days as one can have for rest from toil, is not adequate, as it usually is, to secure abstention from vocations on Sunday, one may, and many thousands do, work on that day without complaint from any source; but if one ostentatiously labors for the purpose of emphasizing his distaste for, or his disbelief in, the custom, he may be made to suffer for his defiance BY PERSECUTIONS, if you call them so, on the part of the great majority, who will compel him to rest when they rest.” CAR 58.4

The Court was composed of Judge Howell E. Jackson, since appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and Judge E. S. Hammond. The decision was written by Judge Hammond. In the Memphis Appeal-Avalanche, Aug. 30, 1891, there appeared a four-column article, dated August 12, by Judge Hammond, under the heading of “The Sunday Habit,” which is little if anything else than a defense of the decision on this subject which had been rendered Aug. 1. In this article he confessed that “the logic of this [his] position may lead to a union of Church and State undoubtedly;” but that the support of Sunday by the civil power, by persecutions at the dictation of the churches, “is a necessity of statesmanship,” upon “the policy of securing the public peace.” The danger to the public peace if Sunday laws were disregarded, or attacked by a proposal to abolish them, is described in the following words:— CAR 58.5

“We have lived so free of it in modern days that we forget the force of religious fanaticism, and he who supposes that its fury cannot be again aroused may be mistaken.... CAR 59.1

“Christians would become alarmed, and they might substitute for the stars and other symbols of civil freedom upon the banners of their armed hosts, the symbol of the cross of Christ, and fight for their religion at the expense of their civil government. They have done this in times that are passed, and they could do it again. And he is not a wise statesman who overlooks a possibility like this and endangers the public peace.... CAR 59.2

“The civilian as contradistinguished from the churchman, though united in the same person, may find in the principle of preserving the public order a satisfactory warrant for yielding to religious prejudice and fanaticism the support of those laws, when the demand for such a support may become a force that would disturb the public order. It may be a constantly diminishing force, but if it be yet strong enough to create disturbance, statesmanship takes account of it as a factor in the problem.” CAR 59.3

These are the deliberate statements of representative men and officials, in official place, men who are in position not only to know, but in which they were obliged to consider the question in all its bearings. And when, having so considered the question, they set forth this as their deliberate conclusion, then nothing more is needed, and nothing more could be asked, to demonstrate that the church element that is managing the Sunday cause is the most dangerous element that there is in the United States. CAR 59.4

That the government of the United States and the people of the whole nation should be deliberately surrendered into the power of this most dangerous and destructive element, is frightful. CAR 60.1

That this pandering to this most dangerous and destructive element, and this deliberate surrender of the government and the nation to it, should be advertised and exalted as “wise statesmanship” by those who have done it, is terrible. It is not statesmanship of any kind, either wise or otherwise. It is shameful cowardice. It is a base betrayal of the supreme public trust-the rights of all the people. CAR 60.2

But that this most dangerous and destructive element should be advertised and exalted as Christianity by those who have surrendered to it as well as by those who manifest it and impose it on the government, is abominable. It is not Christianity in any sense. It is deviltry. CAR 60.3

Yet in the face of this evidence and these open statements of these officials, that this church element that manages the Sunday cause is the most dangerous element in the nation,—so dangerous in fact, that the government and the whole nation must be surrendered to it bodily, in order to preserve the public peace, and even the government itself,—in the face of all this, these same leaders and managers of the Sunday-law cause evidently take great pride in advertising themselves as “the best people of the land,” and “the law-abiding people of the country”! This is evident from the fact that they take occasion to announce themselves as such by preamble, and resolution, and speech, in their mass-meetings. They never lose any such opportunity to exalt themselves as “the best people,” and “the law-abiding portion” of the community or the whole country even. CAR 60.4

The fact is, however, that this claim is as much of a fraud as is all the rest of their claims. It is of the same piece as all the rest of their boasts. It is absolutely fraudulent. The fact is, that these very men are the least law-abiding people in the United States. They have no respect for any law but such as their own arbitrary will demands and approves. Without the slightest hesitation, they disregard and override the supreme law of the government of the United States and of the government of the universe. CAR 60.5

Proof.-The supreme law of the government of the United States, the Constitution, positively prohibits any legislation on the subject of religion. Yet, in spite of this, in utter disregard of the supreme law of the land, these men, by threats of force-threats of the loss of votes, the only force at their command-required Congress to legislate upon a religious subject, to decide a religious question, and to take their side in a great religious controversy. And in this they have plainly overridden the Constitution, and violated the supreme law of the land. And they know it. CAR 61.1

Why, their action is as much worse than that of the average law-breaker, as the supreme law of the land is greater and more important than local statutes. The average law-breaker damages the individual; these supreme law-breakers damage the whole nation. The average law-breaker invades the rights of the individual; these supreme law-breakers have invaded and even swept away the rights of all the people. The average law-breaker disregards social order only in the locality where he is; while these supreme law-breakers strike at the very existence of social order by breaking down the chief governmental safeguard. For the average law-breaker, there is always a ready remedy in the regular forms of governmental order; but for these supreme law-breakers who have broken down the established safeguards of governmental order itself, where is the remedy? CAR 61.2

These facts demonstrate that instead of their being truly the law-abiding portion of the people, these men are the chiefest law-breakers in the land-the most lawless of all the nation. Nor is this at all to be wondered at. For in order to accomplish this their bad purpose, they “gladly joined hands” and hearts with the papacy-that power which the Lord designates as “the lawless one” and as the very “mystery of lawlessness” itself. 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 7. (Revised Version). For eight years continuously, the National Reformers advertised themselves as ready “to make repeated advances, and gladly to accept co-operation in any form in which they [the Roman Church] may be willing to exhibit it.” After eight years of such endeavor, their wishes were rewarded by the following pronunciamento of the Catholic Lay Congress, in Baltimore, Nov. 12, 1889, which, as it passed the inspection of the hierarchy, before it was presented to the public, is the official response of the papacy in the United States, to the National Reform overtures:— CAR 61.3

“There are many Christian issues to which Catholics could come together with non-Catholics and shape civil legislation for the public weal. In spite of rebuff and injustice, and overlooking zealotry, we should seek an alliance with non-Catholics for proper Sunday observance. Without going over to the Judaic Sabbath, we can bring the masses over to the moderation of the Christian Sunday.” CAR 62.1

And this, as the American Sabbath Union branch of the National Reform combination announced at the time, was done “after correspondence and conference with the American Sabbath Union.” The whole statement is in these words:— CAR 62.2

“The National Lay Congress of Roman Catholics, after correspondence and conference with the American Sabbath Union, passed its famous resolution in favor of co-operation with Protestants in Sabbath reform.” CAR 62.3

Then in the same connection, this was announced as “a proposal of courtship.” Following this, Archbishop Ireland, in a public meeting in New York City, in May, 1891, thanked God that “Protestants and Catholics” “stand together in demanding the faithful observance of Sunday.” And as the “advances,” the “proposal,” and the “standing together” were all to secure “civil legislation” for the faithful observance of Sunday, the longed-for union was finally accomplished when they succeeded in dragging the Fifty-second Congress into the now famous and no less infamous Sunday legislation. CAR 62.4

Nor is it to be considered at all strange that they should show themselves so lawless as to disregard and override the supreme law of the nation, and join themselves to the very “mystery of lawlessness” to accomplish this lawless purpose. For, for all these years they have openly, both in actions and words, disregarded and overridden the supreme law of the universe,—the law of God which he proclaimed with a voice that shook the earth, and wrote with his own finger of fire on the tables of stone,—and they have followed the preaching, the precedent, and the authority of the mystery of lawlessness in the doing of it. CAR 63.1

The Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh day, which he himself has named and appointed, which he declared with his own voice from heaven, which is his own, upon which he placed his blessing, which he made holy, and which he sanctified-this, the Sabbath of the Lord, is the sign of what Jesus Christ is to those who believe in him. The observance of it by faith-the true observance of it-brings into the life of the believer in Jesus, as nothing else can, the living presence and power of Jesus Christ. This is true, and every man may know it by faith in Jesus. CAR 63.2

All these years they and the people have been told in the words of God that “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord.” But instead of believing it, or allowing the people to believe it, they have disregarded it and declared that it is not so. They have taught the people that it is not so. They have put no difference between the holy and the profane (Ezekiel 23:36), by telling the people that it makes no difference what day they keep. Thus they disregard the law of the living God, and teach the people to disregard it. Then after teaching the people to disregard the plain word of the law of God as to the observance of the day which he has commanded, and telling all, in their own words that there is no command of God for the observance of Sunday, they join heart and hand with the mystery of lawlessness which has established Sunday instead of the Sabbath of the Lord, and set its own word and heathen customs above the law of God. CAR 63.3

Having thus forsaken the Lord, and all true allegiance to his law, and gone over bodily and heartily and “gladly” to the mystery of lawlessness-having gone to such lengths as this in despising the law of the living God, it is not at all to be wondered at that they would despise the supreme law of the government of the United States, nor that they should require Congress, in violation of its solemn oath, to join in their high-handed enterprise and establish their lawless purpose by the surrender of the power of the national government into their hands to be used at their lawless will, to enforce upon all, their lawless decrees. CAR 64.1

And these are they who pose before the American people as “the best people,” and “the law-abiding people” of the land! Such self-trumpeted glory is completely becoming. Such modesty fits them exactly. CAR 64.2

We stated a moment ago, that, for the average law-breaker, there is always a ready remedy in the regular forms of governmental order; but for these supreme law-breakers who have broken down the established safeguards of governmental order itself, where is the remedy? CAR 64.3

Ah! there is a remedy for this too. It is in the hands of God, the Author of governmental order. CAR 64.4

Against all their attempts to do this great evil, we ever appealed to the Constitution, the grand charter and safeguard of the rights of mankind-the embodiment of the true principles of governmental order. And now that they have done the evil, and in the doing of it have overridden the Constitution, broken down this safeguard of the rights of mankind, and smitten the very citadel of governmental order -now we appeal to the Author of governmental order itself. And our appeal is heard. We wait in perfect confidence. The just judgment will be rendered in due time. CAR 64.5