Religious Liberty Notes
By K. C. Russell
WORD has just been received from our church in Boston, Mass., that the Religious Liberty day was a most profitable occasion. The church people of Arkansas are making a strong protest against a bill that has been introduced into the legislature of that State, allowing games of baseball to be played in the cities of first class on Sunday. A movement in the direction of the “American sabbath,” has been started in France. The Superior Council of the Ministry of Public Works has recommended to the Chamber of Deputies to enact a rigid law, providing for one day of compulsory rest each week. Brother Geo. W. Spies, in the Atlantic Union Gleaner of the 22d ult., reports a lively hearing February 15, in the Pennsylvania State Legislature, at Harrisburg, to amend the 1794 Sunday law, and adds that the contest will be renewed two years hence. Elder Morris Lukens, of Philadelphia, Pa., reports a good day for the religious liberty work, Sabbath, February 25, and says: “It reminds me of the good old days when we heard a great deal about religious liberty, and realized that it was a part of the message. I am sure our people will have more interest in the subject from now on.” The following is the title of a bill introduced into the Wisconsin Legislature: “A Bill to Require One Day’s Rest per Week for Employees.” A hearing of this bill was announced for February 28. A vigorous protest was being made against it by our people in that State, by the circulation of petitions, and writing of letters remonstrating against its passage. The final amendment to the United States Senate bill on Indian appropriations was adopted, Feb. 28, 1905, which reads as follows: “That no portion of the funds appropriated by this act, nor the principal nor interest of any Indian trust or tribal fund held by the United States, for the benefit of any Indian tribe, shall be available nor expended for the support of any sectarian or denominational school; provided, however, that the individual owner or beneficiary of any interest in such fund, who may desire to educate his ward, child, or children in any school other than a government school may, by written order, signed by him, direct that any portion of the interest accruing to him, or which would be allotted to him, on such funds, be paid to the school in which such child or children may be educated.” Several Senators declare that the permitting of the beneficiary to draw the interest accruing to him by a written order signed by himself to be paid to the school in which he might choose to educate his children, destroys the effect of the legislation. K. C. RUSSELL.