American Sentinel, Vol. 8, No. 3
WRITING two weeks ago of the ordinance of civil government, we said:—Page 1
WRITING two weeks ago of the ordinance of civil government, we said:— But this in no way supersedes the divine government; it does not in any measure release the individual from obligation to obey the divine law. It simply provides a way whereby men may compel their fellows to yield to them that which is their due. Notwithstanding the ordinance of civil government, God is still the great moral Governor; to him every soul is responsible; to him every free moral agent must give account. Some, to us unknown, individual in Ohio, marked this paragraph, and after writing upon the margin the following questions, evidently designed to be a “stumper,” returned the paper with a one-cent stamp, in violation of the United States postal laws:— If the individual is not released from this obligation, as such, can any corporate body of individuals release him as a member of such corporation? and is not the corporation bound by the same law? Can the corporation be of any other character than that of the individual membership? No corporation has any power to release any individual from obligation to obey the divine law; and for this very reason, no corporation can, as such, have any thing to do with the divine law. The members of every corporation should be governed as individuals by the divine law; and if so governed they will be honest in all things; but they have no right either as individuals or as a corporation to attempt to enforce that law upon others. As for a corporation having or not having “any other character than that of the individual membership,” the simple truth is, that a corporation has no character at all, of any kind. A corporation can not even violate the postal laws of the United States by sending for one cent a written communication which requires two cents, as this individual has done. Let individuals be honest, and corporations will not wrong anybody. Congress and the World's Fair Once More.
By W. H. M.
TO-DAY, January 10, the House Committee on the World's Fair gave the first of the four hearings to be held this week on the question of Sunday at the World's Fair. At the appointed hour there was present a committee from the common council of the city of Chicago, delegated to represent the city, in this matter, before the House Committee and Congress. There were also present a considerable number of representatives of the American Sabbath Union, and others. Congressman Durborow, Chairman of the committee, opened the hearing by saying:— I think it would be proper to state to the committee that the present case is somewhat different from the case as presented a year ago, and that the proposition before the committee, is to modify existing law—not create law, as was the case a year ago. Therefore the discussion before the committee, on this occasion, it is expected, will be held very closely within the lines of modification presented by the resolution before the committee, which provides for the modification of the closing of the gates of the Columbian Exposition on Sunday by permitting them to be opened under restrictions as stated in this resolution. The resolution, copies of which were placed on the committee room table, was House Resolution 163, which reads as follows:— To provide for opening the World's Columbian Exposition on Sunday. WHEREAS, by an act of Congress approved August fifth, eighteen hundred and ninety-two, five millions of Columbian half dollars were appropriated to provide for celebrating the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus by holding an International Exposition of arts, industries, manufactures, and products of the soil, mine, and sea in the city of Chicago, in the State of Illinois, on the condition that the said Exposition shall not be opened to the public on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday; and WHEREAS the World's Columbian Exposition was not authorized, nor has the work of preparation been prosecuted, for the promotion of local interests, but on the contrary is purely of a national and international character and designed to promote the best interests, not only of all the people of our own nation, but of all the nations of the world who are to take part in, and contribute to, said Exposition; and WHEREAS within said Exposition there will be representations of all that is good and useful, beautiful and artistic, all of which will be object lessons in science, art, education, and history such as are not likely to be again offered to the present generation; and as said Exposition should be so conducted, managed, and controlled as will best promote the social, moral, and educational interests of all the people: Therefore, Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section four of "An act to aid in carrying out the act of Congress approved April twenty-fifth, eighteen hundred and ninety, entitled 'An act to provide for celebrating the four hundredth anniversary of the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus by holding an International Exposition of arts, industries, manufactures, and products of the soil, mine, and sea in the city of Chicago, in the State of Illinois,' and appropriating money therefor," be, and the same is hereby, repealed. SECTION 2. That it shall be, and is hereby, made the duty of the World's Columbian Commission created by the act of Congress of April twenty-fifth, eighteen hundred and ninety, to make such rules or modification of the rules of said corporation known as the World's Columbian Exposition as will prohibit the use, on Sundays, of machinery, unnecessary manual labor, and all merchandising, and at the same time give opportunity for the study of the highest standard of artistic and mechanical science; that the art gallery, horticultural building, and all other buildings in which exhibits of mechanical art are installed shall be thrown open to the public on each and every day during the entire term of the Exposition, and that each employee of said Exposition shall be given one day of each week for rest, study, or recreation. This, of course, ruled out entirely the question of the constitutional or moral principle involved. Nevertheless, Mayor Washburne expressed sound views upon this point in two or three terse and very effective sentences, as did also President18 Gompers, of the American Federation of Labor. But when Mr. A. T. Jones addressed himself to that side of the subject, solely, he was listened to, although with consideration yet with evident dissatisfaction, and when he attempted to show the character and animus of the influence by which the passage of the present Sunday-closing proviso was secured, he was unceremoniously reminded that he was not addressing himself to the point at issue. Mayor Washburne's address to the committee was prefaced with the reading by the city clerk of Chicago, who accompanied the delegation, of a memorial passed by the common council of Chicago, the pith of which was the petition to the committee and Congress:— That the gates of the World's Columbian Exposition be not closed on Sunday. That the buildings may be kept open, and that their exhibits may be especially accessible to all classes on the Sabbath day. That suitable accommodations be provided within the Exposition grounds for holding religious services on the Sabbath day, to the end that all the denominations may have worship conducted according to their several customs, without obstruction or hindrance. Mayor Washburne, after stating that he, and other members of the council, appeared not as individuals, but as representing the city of Chicago, then supplemented the memorial by an able and pointed address in which he said, among other things, that in this matter a constitutional principle was touched; that if this Sunday-closing legislation was had in order to testify to the world that this was the Government of a Christian Nation then it was not justified by constitutional principle; that religious belief as to days as well as to doctrines should be left untouched; that Congress has just as much right to say that the Mohammedan and the Hindoo should be barred out of the Exposition gates entirely as to say that those gates should be closed religiously on the first day of every week; when asked to close the gates on the first day of the week in obedience to a religious belief, Congress is asked to do that which is contrary to its required obedience to the Constitution. Aldermen Madden and Sexton followed Mayor Washburne in short addresses in support of the memorial as read. President Gompers, of the Federation of Labor, then spoke at some length and with much force. Mr. Gompers denied the right of any one to count the wage-workers of the United States as desiring Sunday closing. He read a circular and petition in which it was asked that Congress should refrain from legislating upon this subject which was entirely foreign to it. To this petition nearly three hundred thousand wage-workers had signed their names. The National Convention of Labor at Birmingham, Ala., had been memorialized by the American Sabbath Union asking it to favor Sunday closing at the World's Fair, and the memorial had been reported and replied to adversely. In reference to a much-heralded plan to transport workingmen to and from Chicago between two Sundays, Mr. Gompers said, “Workingmen ask the favor of no patent processes by which they may be shipped to Chicago like cattle, but they desire to pay their own way and take advantage of the commutation which they may obtain through their own efforts, and have the opportunity to see the Fair on every day.” Mr. A. T. Jones closed the hearing for the day with a scholarly and unanswerable plea upon the unconstitutionality of the Sunday-closing law as passed by Congress in the beginning, and arguing from that the necessity for its repeal. From the moment in the beginning of his discourse when Congressman Robinson asked Mr. Jones to what denomination he belonged, and Mr. Jones replied,—after saying, that was a matter in which the committee could properly have no interest,—that he was a Seventh-day Adventist, a growing spirit of derision arose among the listeners,—who were mainly members of the American Sabbath Union and their sympathizers—finally affecting some members of the committee even; and culminating, toward the close of the address,—when Mr. Jones referred to the meeting in Chicago when Sunday closing resolutions had been voted down,—in expressions of disapproval and derisive interruptions scarcely befitting the dignity of the place and occasion. W. H. M. JANUARY 9, Mr. Storey, of the Tennessee legislature, introduced a bill repealing the law against barbering on Sunday in that State. It does not appear, however, that any member of the legislature sees any incongruity in the law which sends a man to the chain-gang for sprouting stumps in his back field on Sunday. BISHOP H. W. WARREN, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, says that “freedom in religion must not mean freedom from religion.” This is a fitting companion piece to the definition of religious freedom by Cardinal Gibbons that “religious freedom is freedom to worship God according to the dictates of a right conscience.” The two utterances are fitting companions, for both are essentially papal. Developed into a Religious Council.
By W. H. M.
THE second day’s hearing before the World’s Fair Committee very nearly developed into a religious council. The entire time of two hours was occupied by the advocates of Sunday closing. The committee room was crowded, and those present were, with few exceptions, ministers of different denominations. Col. Elliot F. Shepard, as president of the American Sabbath Union, had the presentation of the speakers. Those who addressed the committee were, Colonel Shepard, himself; the Rev. Dr. Ramsdell, of Washington; the Rev. Joseph Cook, of Boston; the Rev. Dr. Mott, of New Jersey; the Rev. Dr. Fernley, of Philadelphia; the Rev. Dr. Brooks, of Brooklyn; the Rev. W. F. Crafts, of Pittsburg; the Rev. Dr. Hunter, of Pennsylvania; the Rev. Dr. Hamline, of Washington; the Rev. Dr. McCarroll, of Pennsylvania; the Rev. Dr. Christie, from Asia Minor; Mr. Coffin, of Iowa; the Rev. Dr. Leiper, of Pennsylvania; Mrs. La Fetra, of Washington; Mr. C. C. Evans, of Smyrna, Del. Of the four who did not address the committee in a ministerial capacity, as representing the religious belief and views of the Nation, two represented the American Sabbath Union, and one claimed to represent the farmers of his State, as well; another spoke for the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, of the District of Columbia, which had set apart for itself the four days of the hearing as days of special prayer, that the law prohibiting Sunday opening of the Fair be not repealed, and had asked that all Christian people join with them in daily prayer to the same end; while the third informed the committee he brought with him resolutions signed by eighty citizens of Delaware, demanding that legislation to close the World’s Fair be not repealed, under the alternative of a boycott. The threat of a boycott of the Fair was sufficient to show that the resolutions came from a religious gathering, for none other would have thought of taking that ground, or has. That which the speakers had to say was presented with much fluency and force, and in some cases with marked ability. Every moment of the time was utilized, and the management of this portion of the hearing exemplified most strikingly the facility which these organizations for securing and enforcing religious law have for mobilizing their forces, and working together in perfect mechanical accord to the same end. That the arguments of different advocates of religious legislation show great discrepancies, contradictions, and inconsistencies, when brought together and compared, is well known to all who have paid any critical attention to their writing or speaking. They suffered considerably in this hearing from the unavoidable comparison of so many conflicting views placed with such rapidity before the committee. Upon two things, however, there was complete unanimity of conviction and expression, and those were that by decision of the Supreme Court this was a “Christian Nation,” and legislation asked by its religious representatives for the furtherance of Christianity, therefore, permissible; and that this decision with the judicial precedents, and social customs upon which it is based, made all reference to constitutional principles entirely futile, useless, and quite out of place. Over and over again the subtle flattery was laid at the feet of congressmen—combined with a backhanded blow at those who assert constitutional principles, that it would seem a reflection upon the committee and Congress that this matter should come up for discussion again at all; and that, the necessity for such a discussion involved a reflection upon Congress that it did not know what it wanted and was composed of hypocrites and weathervanes; and that, to say a word upon the unconstitutionality of the Sunday-closing proviso would be a reflection upon the committee, Congress which passed it, and the President of the United States who signed it. It was also slyly insinuated that Congress would not care to acknowledge that it had passed an unconstitutional law, by repealing the Sunday closing clause. If this is not corruption, what is? To use the graces of practised oratory to lead the legislators of the Nation away from the Constitution, to persuade them that criticism of any action they may take is insolence, and to suggest to them, that when in legislative error, they should beware of acknowledging it by the repeal of the erroneous legislation—is this the political teaching of the Church of the United States by the mouths of its accredited representatives? Such was its teaching at this hearing. In the criticisms of the business purpose of the World’s Fair managers in desiring an open Fair, the ministerial ideas on the financial question of the Fair seemed quite at variance. Several condemned the management of the Fair in the severest language, and without stint, as greedy of gain and forgetful of all else, and careless of all else—only to get gold,—while another argued long and in minute detail of mathematical statistics that there would be a money profit in closing the Fair on Sunday. The early differences between the American Sabbath Union and the National Reform Association as to the propriety of the assumed disguise of a civil Sabbath, were still apparent, although the majority of the speakers threw off the cloak entirely and spoke as they would from their pulpits. Still, several claimed earnestly that all they asked was a civil Sunday, and proceeded immediately to disprove their assertion by the very language which they themselves used. In closing, letters were presented from19 Bishops Potter and Cleveland Coxe, and Cardinal Gibbons, gentlemen who, according to this, would seem to have achieved a great success in securing a position on both sides of the Exposition fence. A Day of Contending Parties.
By W. H. M.
More eloquence was heard, and a much greater interest aroused, on the third day of the hearing before the World's Fair Committee, than on either of the preceding days. The committee sat from ten o'clock until half past twelve, and the time was divided equally between the contending parties. Dr. Atterbury, of the New York Sabbath Committee, introduced the speakers who favored the Sunday-closing law as it stands. Dr. Atterbury stated that the New York Sabbath Committee, as an organization for the enforcement of Sunday rest, had been in existence thirty-five years, and was not of a theological caste as to membership, but was composed of business and workingmen. Letters were read from John E. Parsons and Mr. John Bigelow, of New York, in which they both took unqualified ground in favor of the complete Sunday closing of the Fair. The speakers who followed upon this side of the question were Bishop Hurst, of Washington, D. C.; Robert L. Belknap, of New York; the Rev. Dr. McKim, of Washington, D. C.; Gifford Agnew, of New York; Mr. Cornell, of Maryland; the Rev. Dr. Herrick Johnson, of Chicago; the Rev. Dr. Blanchard, of Illinois, and the Rev. Dr. Brooks, of New York. Those who addressed the committee in opposition to the views of the Sunday closers, were a delegation of three ladies, Mrs. Boyesen, Mrs. Remick and Mrs. Washburne, from the Woman's Club, of Chicago; Miss Susan B. Anthony; Rev. Mr. Cross, of Ohio; Rev. Minot J. Savage, of Boston; Mr. Putnam, of California; Rev. Dr. A. H. Lewis, of New Jersey, and Mr. Jas. T. Ringgold, of Baltimore. The points presented for Sunday closing were but a reiteration of those previously made, only in some instances expressed with an even greater skill of diction, and vigor of intensity. One minister published quite fully his lamentable inability to recognize the distinction between the crime of polygamy and the sin of Sabbath breaking. His mental blindness was evidently shared by his brother ministers, for they assented heartily to his proposition that laws against polygamy, and to close the World's Fair, stand on precisely the same basis. The idea that anything in the Constitution of the United States precludes the passage of Sunday laws, by Congress, was laughed to scorn. “Why,” cried the speakers, “if that be so, then the Constitution has cut its own throat, in the clause ‘Sundays excepted.’” Mr. Putnam, of California, clearly showed the fallacy of this notion in a few simple words. But the same thing has been done multitudes of times and yet the foolishness lives. The Woman's Club, of Chicago, sent a delegation of three wise and witty women, who, after sitting quietly by and listening attentively to the ministerial talk of the previous session, astonished the assembled Sunday-closing clergymen almost out of their senses, by administering to them such a rebuke as they had never received since they left their mothers' knees. That any one, much less a woman, should presume to so take a clergyman to task, was to them, beyond belief; and still more irritating and horrifying was it, that, coming from a woman, they were obliged to listen, though with a very ill grace. This disinclination to listen to correction was emphasized by some insincere applause and cries of, “Hear! Hear!” This the chairman severely reproved, reminding them that they had been listened to with consideration and that the same consideration was due from them to others,—a courtesy which they had before failed to show. The Rev. Mr. Cross, a Presbyterian clergyman, from Ohio, struck in so open and manly a way at the deception that has been practiced in repeating petitions that the first two paragraphs of his remarks are quoted here, inasmuch, too, as it is a matter to which the SENTINEL has both frequently and lately referred. Mr. Cross said:— Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee: The real object of my being here to speak a word is in favor of intellectual honesty on the part of the orthodox churches. I am a minister of an orthodox church. I notice in my territory that these church petitions are exceedingly delusive, as to the number of those that sign them or vote for them. Now for example, in one instance in our State the Presbyterians passed a resolution, saying that we represent so many, aggregating a certain membership; and then the Christian Endeavor Society, composed of many of the same church members alluded to by that Presbyterian church, will pass a like resolution, and say we represent fifty, seventy or one hundred members. And then it will be brought before the Sunday-school. And many of the persons who are counted as voting for the resolutions will have been counted three, four or five times; and it is almost on the principle of voting early and often—which is so much opposed in secular politics. I am a witness to this fact. There was one petition claiming to represent eighty church members that signed the petition to Congress, but they were not present at all. It was at a Sunday-school, and the vote was taken by the Sunday-school superintendent, and there were children that voted for these resolutions that were not old enough to know whether the expression, “World's Fair” meant the pretty girls in the next pew or the Columbian Exposition in Chicago. I deem it my duty to inform this committee of the facts in that case. The real animus of those petitions is religious. But you can not tell by the wording of the petitions just what they mean; it is the spirit back of them that shows this. The columns of the religious press, and the exhortations of class leaders and Sunday-school superintendents—it is what they say to the few that are voting, that tell what these petitions mean. I deem our legislators thoroughly competent, intellectually and morally, to decide this question without any imperious dictation from any sect or group of sects, as to whether this opening of the great educational Exposition is consistent with the civil Sabbath. I notice a tendency in my own church papers and in other orthodox church papers to gloat over the fact that “we”—that is this group of denominations having this common idea,—“have been strong enough by our own strength, to grasp Congress; we have hurled Congress against the Seventh-day Adventists, against the Seventh-day Baptists, and against the Roman Catholic citizens, and against various other of our citizens.” These things Mr. Cross deprecated, and most properly. Mr. Savage also touched this same point and quoted an epigram to the effect that while it might not always be true that “figures will lie,” yet it was most unfortunately a fact that “liars will figure.” For the application of this he most gracefully apologized, yet found it unavoidably apt. Unexpectedly to himself, Dr. A. H. Lewis, of the Seventh-day Baptists, was called upon by the chairman to occupy half of the final ten minutes of the day's hearing in opposition to the Sunday closers. By a skillful manner of address, most admirable in its pleasing character, Dr. Lewis succeeded in obtaining attention for the short time given him to the historical and legal grounds against religious legislation in general, and this especial instance in particular. Mr. James T. Ringgold, of Baltimore, closed the day's session with an earnest legal appeal in which he also found opportunity to express sound reasons against legislation upon religious subjects. The two facts thus far most fully emphasized by these hearings seem to be, the total displacement of constitutional principle by religious dogma in judicial law, and the extreme intolerance of criticism or opposition by the clergy. Religious Legislatorists Learn Another Lesson.
By W. H. M.
THE last of the series of four hearings upon the Sunday opening or closing of the World's Fair was of more intense interest than anything previously heard upon this question. Three hours and a half were occupied in the discussion. Twelve speakers were heard in favor of closing the Fair on Sunday, and five in opposition. But having the larger number of speakers present did not save the religious legislatorists from receiving another very unwelcome lesson from their opponents. Those who opposed the organized clergy at this final encounter before the committee were Mr. Morgan and Mr. Askew, of Chicago, representing the Trade and Labor Assembly; and Rev. Dr. Thomas, of Chicago, while Mrs. Boyesen and Mrs. Washburne replied very concisely to some strictures upon what they had said the previous day. The openness and candor, the native force and practical character of the views and facts presented by these representatives of the workingmen were in most striking contrast to much, and indeed to most, that has been said at these hearings in support of Sunday closing. In summing up the argument for closed gates, Rev. Dr. George had belittled the petitions heretofore presented against religious legislation as meaning nothing, representing no one, and of no value, and called upon his opposers to present the vouchers which should prove that they actually spoke for a known constituency. These vouchers Mr. Askew presented in petitions and resolutions from three hundred and seventy-five labor organizations in thirty-three States, and said that these were continually coming in large numbers, as he had a telegram from the headquarters of his assembly, in Chicago, that on the previous day over thirty had been received. Only little more than a month had elapsed since the first communication had been sent out upon this matter, yet within that short time a unanimous expression in favor of Sunday opening had been received from organized labor all over the United States. While Mr. Askew presented labor statistics, resolutions, petitions and letters which were undeniable and unanswerable vouchers as to the sentiments of the laboring men of the country, he punctuated and emphasized their presentation by concise and clearly stated explanations of the number and character of the organization from which the resolution or petition came, such as could not fail to carry conviction to every one present, however unwilling they might be to receive it, that the workingmen had spoken, and that they had spoken adversely to Sunday closing. The figures of Mr. Askew were in marked contrast to the fanciful estimates of forty and fifty millions of the Sunday closers, and it was20 evident that here, at last, were figures and figures which did not lie. But the facts which Mr. Morgan set before them were no less startling to their self assurance, and touched their egotism even more keenly. He denied their right to speak for European Socialists whom they had quoted, and said that these men upheld the principles enunciated by Jesus Christ,—“principles” said he, “which you do not understand.” An arraignment too bitterly, sadly true,—and never more clearly demonstrated than by the deliverances of some who claimed to be his ambassadors, at these very hearings. This final session closed with a terse reply from both Mrs. Boyesen and Mrs. Washburne to strictures upon what they had said yesterday. Mrs. Boyesen had reminded the ministers that anarchy was abroad already in this land, and they were not placating it or removing any of the grievances which goad those who carry the red flag, by closing the doors of the Exposition to them on Sunday, but quite the contrary. To this, with a disconcerting insincerity, quite unworthy of the credit of their cloth, they had raised the cry of “Anarchy!” Mrs. Boyesen gave them to understand that she had told them a truth, and if an unwelcome truth, they were welcome to make the most of it. This was the end,—but still the end is not yet. The Sunday-closing faction has visited, by appointed delegation, the President, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor of the Treasury, with the purpose shown in this letter which has been sent to the President:— TO THE PRESIDENT: On behalf of millions of citizens who think that Sunday should be kept holy, and of many more millions of hand and head laborers who think that Sunday should at least be a day of rest, we ask: That the transfer of souvenir coins provided for by the act of Congress, approved August 5, 1892, from the officers of the United States to the corporation known as the World's Columbian Exposition be suspended until the owners (whoever they may be) of all the grounds included in the site upon which the Columbian Exposition buildings are erected, give their assent to the provision for Sunday closing made by Congress in said act; or until the question reported as mooted in the courts of Illinois by application for an injunction to enjoin the World's Columbian Exposition management from closing the gates on Sunday, be legally determined in favor of such closing; or that, in view of the importance of the subject, in addition to the legal opinion already given by the Solicitor of the Treasury, that the President obtain the opinion of the Attorney-General himself upon the whole subject as affected by the possible intervention of the courts, pending the giving of which opinion the transfer of souvenir coins to cease. Should the entire $2,500,000 be transferred to the managers of the Fair under the act of Congress and the gates then finally be opened, the sagacity and honor of the present administration would be so impugned that no attempt to cast the onus upon the courts would suffice to justify such a failure of the Executive Department of the Government of the United States to secure conformity with existing law. On behalf of the General Committee, composed of the friends of Sunday closing.
(Signed)
ELLIOTT F. SHEPARD.
CHARLES B. RAMSDELL. Another step in the progress of the matter is shown by this:— Congressman John B. Robinson, of Pennsylvania, is preparing, and will introduce in the House, a resolution calling for inquiry as to the closing of the World's Fair on Sunday. If it is found open the Attorney-General is instructed to proceed to recover money already paid under the Sunday closing clause. The resolution is not yet drawn, but Mr. Robinson will introduce it as soon as practicable. Most assuredly the end is not yet.