The Signs of the Times, Vol. 8, No. 34; Special Edition, No. 1
Humility Before HonorPage 1
Earlier text: Out of the TracesTemperance Charts.
By Editor
It is a very common thing, when speaking of the injurious effects of alcohol and tobacco, to hear some one say, “It may be bad for some folks, but it doesn't hurt me.” Such a remark would, of course, never be heard in regard to carbolic acid, creosote, or any other deadly poison. Now if those persons could only be made to realize that alcohol is, in itself, a poison similar to the above-mentioned poisons, and has a fixed, injurious action, it is evident that it would be a great gain to the temperance cause. These temperance charts, consisting of a series of ten plates, showing the physical effects of alcohol and tobacco upon the human body, are calculated to accomplish this very purpose. They are designed by Dr. J. H. Kellogg, of Battle Creek, Mich., and contain the results of the experience and careful research, both of the author and of the most eminent scientific men. Plate 1 is designed to convey to the eye the fact that alcohol belongs to a class of chemical compounds known as the “Alcohol Family,” and is closely allied to carbolic acid, creosote, etc. No. 2 shows the appearance of the healthy stomach. No. 3 shows the congested condition of the stomach of the “moderate drinker.” No. 4 is a representation of the actual condition of the stomach of the hard drinker, showing the dilated blood-vessels and the ulcerous patches. No. 5 represents the highly inflamed and irritable condition of the stomach of a man suffering from delirium tremens. No. 6 shows that cancer of the stomach is a condition similar to that of the drunkard's stomach, and that it may be caused by alcohol. No. 7 compares the appearance of healthy nerve cells and fiber, healthy blood, and healthy muscle, with the same tissues when diseased through the influence of alcohol. Nos. 8 and 9 show the healthy brain, heart, lung, liver, and kidney, and the condition of the same organs in the drunkard. No. 10 shows the effect of alcohol and tobacco on the action of the heart, indicated by the irregularity of the pulse, as shown by the sphygmograph. The charts are accompanied by a book giving full explanations. They cannot fail to add to the interest of a temperance lecture, and will help to make the subject real. Those who have used them speak very highly of them. For popular use we know of nothing better. Price, $10.00 and $15.00, according to style of mounting. For sale at this office. ILLINOIS, Watseka, Sept. 5-12. PENNSYLVANIA, Olean, N. Y., " 12-18. NEW YORK, Union Square, Oswego Co., " 20-26. MICHIGAN, Lansing, Sept. 27 to Oct. 2. KENTUCKY, Custer, " 4-10. CALIFORNIA, Healdsburg, " 5-. Testimony No. 31 Pamphlet Recommended to Families
By Editor
WE have before called attention to this pamphlet of 244 pages. It is put up in durable form for fifty cents a copy. We are glad to know that it is having good effect on those who read it with care. It is greatly to be hoped that every family of Sabbath-keepers in the land will have a copy. They can be furnished singly or in quantities at this office. It is thought best to postpone this meeting until Oct. 5. The reasons are sufficient—they are urgent. We are in an eventful period of our work. The College has fairly commenced, and needs means; also must be incorporated soon. The pledges to the city churches need to be paid. Our publishing work is increasing. We have very little ministerial help, and there is some prospect that we will have less after camp-meeting, unless steps are taken to prevent a decrease. These and other matters demand immediate attention. Elder Haskell is needed very much at the coming camp-meeting; but we have given up all hope of his arriving here as early as Sept. 21. Last year the weather was cool in the latter part of October, but that is no indication that it will be so early in October this year. Our experience in California proves to us that one year cannot be judged by the one which preceded it. The weather is quite likely to be beautiful in early October. But if it proves to be chilly in the evening, the Committee will have complete preparations made for warming the large tent, thus making all comfortable in the meetings. Let all provide themselves with plenty of clothing, and all will be well. This is a very important meeting. Better to suffer a little inconvenience than to have the interests of the meeting suffer. We must have Eld. Haskell present at this meeting if possible. We regret to report that Sister White is still sick, and very feeble. She has labored altogether too hard for months past. Her help, also, is much needed at the camp-meeting, and there is but little present prospect of her being able to take much part in such a meeting by Sept. 21. We are in perilous times, and the perils of these last days are fast increasing. We ask the prayers of all in behalf of Sister White, and for the success of the coming meeting. “THE action of the Democratic State Convention at San Jose is a most alarming and ominous assault upon the very foundations of our holy religion.”—Cal. Christian Advocate. “This is not a religious question; and there is no religious influence brought to bear except in the interest of humanity.”—Rev. W. J. Smith, Presbyterian, Sunday Sermon. “But their witness agreed not together.” Mark 14:56. It has seemed as if the Mormons were about to triumph over every effort to stop their immoral proceedings. Polygamous marriages continued to be contracted just as though Congress had not legislated on the subject. How to reach the evil seemed a question. But the commissioners appointed over the affairs of Utah have struck a blow which is telling. They have publish'd a decision disfranchising all who have contracted such marriages since the action of Congress on the subject. If this policy is followed something may yet be effected, for the Mormons well understand their weakness if they lose the ballot. Republican State Convention.
It was our privilege to attend the first two days of this Convention at Sacramento City. Next week we shall give our impressions of some of the proceedings. Our readers must not think we have turned politician because we attended a political convention. They must bear in mind that the line between politics and popular religion has become very faint and dim in California. If one wishes to know all about politics now he must go to church, where he will be instructed about “police regulations,” and learn the true nature of “sanitary measures.” And if he would learn the extreme depth of the religious sentiment of the day, he must go to a political meeting. No “shouting Methodists” ever showed so much enthusiasm as political conventions now show over “our holy religion.” But we will never have a union of “church and State” in this country! Oh, no. “We are the people.” What will happen when the blind lead the blind? Arrangements for Camp-Meeting.
By M. C. Israel
All who go by rail will have to come to San Francisco first. The only reduction on the Central Pacific Railroad from usual rates, is by chartered cars. Seating capacity, fifty adults. For children from five to twelve, half fare. Round trip as follows:— Woodland, $194 for car; to each person..... $3.88
Fresno, $435 for car; to each person..... $8.75
Lemoore, $550 for car; to each person..... $11.00 Our friends from this place can take advantage of rates already existing, which are as low as $1.50 each way. Tickets for the camp-meeting and return will be sold at these stations,—$8.80 from Salinas, and $7.00 from Castroville, including camp-meeting baggage; no reduction can be obtained for intermediate places, except for a larger number than will be likely to come. HEALDSBURGH AND SAN FRANCISCO.
The San Francisco and North Pacific Railroad Company have reduced the fare for us to $4.00 round trip, including 100 pounds of baggage, each. They have also kindly offered to give us a free pass for two tons of our camp-meeting freight, each way. Our brethren will find it best to have one of their number to each car, or each company to attend to the baggage and have it checked as if it was all his own. By doing this you will not be likely to have to pay anything extra for baggage. Some having more and some less than the rate allowed will not average over the 100 pounds each. All who wish to be provided with tents, already pitched on the ground when they arrive, had better apply by letter, or otherwise, to the undersigned or G. D. Hager, Pacific Press, Oakland, at once, so that provision can be made in time. The rates will be as usual. Trains leave San Francisco for Healdsburg at 7:10 A. M., 4:50 P. M., via San Rafael. 2:30 P. M., via Donahue. PUBLISHED WEEKLY, AT OAKLAND, CAL., FOR THE Missionary Society of Seventh-day Adventists. A twelve-page Religious Family Paper, devoted to a discussion of the Prophecies, Signs of the Times, Second Coming of Christ, Harmony of the Law and Gospel, with Departments devoted to Temperance, The Home Circle, The Missionary Work, and the Sabbath-school. Price Per Year, . . . . . $2.00 In Clubs of five or more copies to one address, to be used in Missionary Work, . . . 1.50 Address, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal. REVIEW AND HERALD, Battle Creek, Michigan. ELD. J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH, Ravenswood, Shirley Road, Southampton, England. MISS ELIZA THAYER, Sec. N. E. Tract Society, South Lancaster, Mass. W. L. Raymond, Gaston, Oregon. Our Publications in England.
ANY of the books, pamphlets, and tracts issued at this Office may be obtained of Eld. J. N. Loughborough, Ravenswood, Shirley Road, Southampton, England, who will furnish Catalogues, and give prices in English money. He will also receive subscriptions for our periodicals. ALL who are acquainted with our cause know that we have constantly affirmed, during the last thirty years, that the Sunday question would become the most prominent issue in American politics. The present movement in California is the first of a series of similar movements which will be inaugurated in different States. Present prospects indicate that Ohio will be the scene of the next excitement on the subject, but we will not pretend to say that it will be, as it may arise as unexpectedly in some other field as it has in California. These efforts in the several States can be only partially successful. The lines of railroad from ocean to ocean are too extensive and powerful for State control. With these are connected so many industries that Sunday will never be kept by all classes as a day of entire rest from labor, as long as the railroads send out trains on that day. And this is but one direction in which the Sunday Law will be practically disregarded. Those who make and administer such laws care nothing for them personally. They will travel as long as the cars move on Sunday. They pass the law, and sometimes enforce it, in obedience to a popular demand, to please those whose votes they wish to secure to be retained in office. So with many delegates in the recent convention in Sacramento. We know some who joined in the jubilation over the “Sunday plank,” who care no more for Sunday than we do; but it appeared to them to present a means for obtaining the victory in the election, and as such it was seized with eagerness. This movement presents an incongruous admixture of politics and religion—politics for mere victory, and religion without reverence. And such incongruities will always be seen in every step toward a union of “Church and State.” Nothing but an Amendment of the Constitution of the United States will meet their demand, and for this a large National Association is now laboring. Judging from the temper of the times there will be little difficulty in procuring this Amendment to our National Constitution. Then, they say, this will be a “Christian Nation.” We have believed these things were coming, and proclaimed our belief when almost everybody laughed at what they termed our credulity and our folly. We believed it, because we thought the prophets of God had predicted it. We saw a contest spoken of in Revelation over “the commandments of God,” and we saw no chance for such a conflict to arise except over the downtrodden Sabbath commandment. Events are proving that we were not mistaken in reading the prophecy. And these events are but the beginning of the end; the first drops of the flood of lawlessness which will soon prevail upon the earth. The question is raised: If you expect that such things will come, why endeavor to prevent their coming by asking politicians and legislators to exempt you from the penalties of the Sunday Law? We have several reasons for so doing. We are anxious to proclaim the warning as far as possible before the evil comes upon the earth. For evil will come. God will not always suffer his holy Sabbath to be trodden under foot, and a heathen festival—“the day of the sun”—exalted in its place. The day of vengeance is approaching, and the wrath of God will surely fall upon those who trample on his law. We do not wish to see the evil come upon our nation, without a suitable effort on our part to help those who are in darkness. We believe there are many in the land who will repent and believe if the light is set before them. We are anxious that our Publishing House in Oakland shall be permitted to continue peaceably to print and send forth the truth on these important subjects. We wish to do this in harmony with the Law of God which gives us six days for labor, and the seventh for rest and worship. We do not take such steps because of a lack of confidence in the word of God. We love our fellow-men, and wish to see them embrace the truth and escape when the wrath of God shall fall upon the heads of the guilty. You may wonder that we, a body of earnest Christians, who take no especial part in politics, take such an interest in the present campaign, and in the election. Have you wondered that an institution called “the Christian Sabbath,” has been taken up and made the political issue in this campaign? All who are acquainted with us know that we conscientiously and strictly observe the seventh day as the Sabbath. We find no commandment in the Bible for the observance of Sunday, and we do find a plain commandment to keep holy the seventh day. As Bible Christians we do not hesitate what to do. We must keep the seventh day. No body of people in this State have greater interest in the present campaign than we. Shall we be permitted to obey the decalogue, the ten commandments, just as Jehovah spoke and wrote them? Or shall we be compelled by the laws of man to keep the Sunday, contrary to our conscientious convictions? The present Sunday Law grants us no exemption. We have not the same privilege as observers of God’s law, which is given to hotel-keepers, to keepers of livery stables; to barbers, etc. We made an effort to get the Republican Convention to speak a word in its platform in behalf of our claim—in behalf of our Constitutional rights. This it refused to do. It is well understood that the adherents to Sunday, while they asked the Republicans to indorse the present Sunday Law, are not themselves satisfied with it. What they ask this year is but a prelude to what they will ask next year. The Republicans unfortunately committed themselves fully, not only to the present demands, but also to those which may be made in future. They declare in favor of the present law, or “similar laws providing for the suspension of all unnecessary business on that day.” This is more than the Sunday people openly asked—not more than it was expected they would ask eventually. We speak advisedly when we say that the Sunday advocates, with few exceptions, do not intend that there shall be any exception in our favor. We judge from the tone of the religious papers, and of sermons preached by representative men among them. Who has a greater interest in the issue than we have? The Scriptures plainly bring to view a Sabbath reform to be accomplished in the last days. It is a matter of prophecy that, in the time of the end, the professedly Christian world generally would be trampling the Sabbath under their feet, so that it would be a part of the special work of the true ministers of Christ in these last days, to call upon men “to turn away their feet from the Sabbath;” and as a marked characteristic of those who receive the truth, it could be said, “Here are they that keep the commandments of God.” A comparison of the creeds of Christendom with the word of God, shows readily enough the reform that is needed. The seventh day has been torn from its position in the decalogue, and another day has been made to usurp its place. All this must be reversed. And the work is already well under way. Over a quarter of a century ago it was begun by a few earnest souls upon whom the light of the prophecy had dawned. Accessions have continually swelled the ranks. The strength of the Scripture testimony and the clearness of the argument for the true Sabbath have more and more clearly appeared, and the utter lack of foundation for the Sunday institution, Scriptural, historical, logical, and even inferential, has become equally conspicuous. Some thirty thousand persons are now standing boldly forth as the defenders of the true against the claims of the false. Most of these were formerly in the Sunday-keeping ranks, but from the clearness of the light, have changed sides. And there are “more to follow.” What can the advocates of Sunday do? In the Scriptures they find no support for their institution. History is against them. Their defenses prove worthless. Their guns are spiked. They too could join those who accept the truth; but they will not. There is left them only that to which error is ever fain to resort, after all else fails—human legislation. Turning Away the Ear from the Law
“HE that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” —Prov. 28 : 9. Political State Conventions.
The Democratic State Convention was held at San Jose, in June last. In its “platform” was a resolution which, though it did not name the present Sunday Law, was understood to favor its repeal. This, however, was not the first agitation of the subject in this State. An effort had been made to enforce the law strictly, over one thousand warrants having been issued in San Francisco. A society—“Home Protection”—was organized for the express purpose of enforcing it; and a counter society was organized, entitled the “League of Freedom,” to resist its enforcement. The latter society was understood to act in behalf of the liquor interest. The policy of this society was to defend its members in the Courts, and pay their fines if convicted, and thus continue their Sunday traffic. The excitement ran high, and the “Home Protectionists” announced their intention to vote for those candidates only who would pledge themselves to sustain the law, and to nominate a separate ticket in case the two parties refused to indorse it in their Conventions. It was well understood that the opposing party would adopt similar measures. Thus it was fairly forced into the political field before either Convention was held. In the meantime the Supreme Court, four to three, decided that the law was Constitutional. The Republican Convention assembled at Sacramento August 30. A strong pressure had been brought to bear on the party, many papers speaking as if their success depended entirely on their indorsing that Law. Many delegates were instructed in its favor. It was evident that it was to be the most prominent and exciting issue of the campaign. As the Republican party are the dominant party in the State, and the churches declared their intention to vote for the candidates who would stand on the Sunday platform, it appeared to us that, probably, the Republicans would take their stand in favor of Sunday, and succeed in the election. We therefore considered it our duty to make an effort to secure in their platform a recommendation to have us exempted from the penalties of the Sunday Law. Our reason for this is given on the first page of this paper. We were courteously treated by the delegates from Oakland, and by them assisted to obtain a hearing before the Committee on Resolutions, to whom all such matters were referred by the Convention. The Chairman of that Committee kindly offered to call us when that question came up. As soon as the Committee were called to order they were addressed by Colonel Babcock, in behalf of the Prohibitionists. He asked for legislation to make effectual that part of the Constitution which sanctions “local option.” He did not consider it best to ask for more than that. He was followed by Mr. Shaffer, late President of the “League of Freedom,” who represented the “whisky interest.” He was a delegate in the Convention. He asked the Committee to ignore prohibition; to leave that subject out of the platform. If they would do so, he promised that the liquor men would support the Sunday Law. He also recommended heavier penalties for violating the Sunday Law, so as to make it effectual, and secure its enforcement. The Chairman, Judge Latimer of San Francisco, then introduced us. Knowing the subject would come before the Convention, but not knowing in what manner, or whether we would be permitted to appear in person, we had prepared an Address which we proceeded to read. However, as we had been requested to be brief, as the Committee had a great deal of work before them, we read the first part, explained those paragraphs which enforced our positions on the Bible, and read the concluding paragraphs. We left a copy of the Address with the Chairman, and retired. This was all that we could do—all that we expected to do, in attending the Convention. We remained over the next day, August 31, to hear the platform read, and to listen to the discussion of its several sections. The platform was long, embracing eighteen resolutions. Only two of them elicited any discussion to speak of. One on the controversy between the miners and the farmers of the river counties, after some debate, was struck out. That concerning the railroad—the “Anti-monopoly plank” as it was called—excited a very hot controversy, but was retained as reported. Over none of the others was much feeling manifested, except the fifth—the “Sunday-Law plank.” That all readers may know what was our request as presented before the Committee, we here reproduce it, in the exact form in which it was given to the Chairman and others at the Convention. We have not seen or even heard of a single individual who denies that our request is reasonable; and we have heard of gentlemen of unquestioned legal ability, on both sides of the issue, declaring that our position on the Codes is correct. We invite all classes, politicians, Christians, and “liberals,” to read it with care, and then judge—not according to the will of “the majority,” which can determine nothing in morals and religion, but—according to the golden rule, with an earnest desire to do by others as you would have them do by you, were you in the minority and asking for that which were your moral right. To the Republican State Convention of California, Sacramento, 1882:—
By Joseph Harvey Waggoner
In addressing this Convention, the representatives of a great political party, I feel that my position is somewhat anomalous, in that I do not come as a politician, but to speak in behalf of a body of Christians, your fellow-citizens of this Commonwealth. It is something new in American politics that the subject of religion, or a question purely religious, has become the most exciting issue of a political campaign. It is not a new idea to any of you that there are honest differences of opinion upon every point of religious faith and practice. I represent a body of Christians known as Seventh-day Adventists. The distinctive feature of our faith to which I respectfully ask your attention, is our observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, and not the first day. We freely admit that we are not numerous as some other religious bodies. But we need not say to you, Republicans, that questions of either civil or religious rights do not rest on the numbers of those whose rights may be infringed. Right is right, even with the few; and wrong is wrong, though multitudes may favor it. We do not make this our appeal to you because we think you have any intention to infringe on our rights. We have too much respect for the history of the great Republican party to harbor the suspicion that you would intentionally injure any in his rights, either civil or religious. But we do think that many who have entered into this Sunday-Law discussion are laboring under some misapprehensions concerning some phases of the issue. We do not wonder at this, seeing that hitherto questions of the policy of the State have been kept separate from those of the church. It is altogether a new thing for politicians, as such, to engage in the discussion of questions entirely religious. We believe that our position, when fully understood, will commend itself to your candid consideration, and we hope it will receive your entire approval. And 1. We do not ask the destruction of Sunday as a legal holiday. We concede that it is well to have a weekly rest secured by law to the workingman. And we have no objection to having Sunday adopted as that day. But we hold, 2. That the present Sunday Law, so-called, is not at all necessary to secure a weekly rest to the laboring men of this State. The Civil Code of California makes every Sunday a legal holiday, and expressly declares that any labor or business appointed by law or contract to be done, if the obligation falls upon a holiday—upon any Sunday—such labor or business may be done upon the next succeeding business day. Thus the Civil Code furnishes ample protection against the exactions of employers, to all who will avail themselves of its provisions. 3. That, while we are constantly informed by advocates of the present Sunday Law, both in the arena of politics and religion, that if this law be not sustained the workingmen will have no weekly rest guaranteed to them by law, we think they entirely misapprehend the facts in the case; that the Law of the Penal Code, known as the Sunday Law, is partial and inefficient, referring to certain kinds of labor which it prohibits, and not referring at all to other kinds of labor embraced in vast industries of our great State. In contrast with it, the Civil Code embraces labor of all kinds, and every industry, affording a day of rest to all classes. If any take issue on this statement, we invite them to point out to you some privilege which is secured to the laborer, in regard to a day of rest, by the Penal Code, or Sunday Law, which is not guaranteed by the Civil Code. We can point you to guarantees in the Civil Code, which are not furnished in the Penal Code. 4. This being so, beyond all dispute, we ask: What is the necessity for this great effort to maintain the Sunday Law? What does it grant, which is not granted in the Civil Code, and which would not be guaranteed by the Civil Code if the Sunday Law were abolished? We firmly believe that any one, who carefully examines this point, will admit our claim, that the Sunday Law is not only inefficient, but entirely unnecessary, to secure to all the laborers of our State, their legal right to a day of weekly rest. For, the laborers on the farms, and in the mines, and in other industries, have no right whatever to a day of rest secured to them by the Sunday Law. For this they are dependent on the Civil Code, where the guarantees are ample. 5. Our conclusion from these undeniable premises is the only conclusion left to any, namely: that the present Sunday agitation is not to secure a rest day to the workingman, as has been so often affirmed; it is not to support a mere “police regulation,” or “sanitary measure.” But the true reason is found in the fact that, in the Penal Code, laboring on Sunday is declared to be an “offense against religion.” The present agitation is in behalf of the Sunday, not as a civil, but as a religious institution. It is in regard to its religious aspect, solely, that it is now thrown into the field of politics. For the question of Sunday as a legal day of rest for all, according to the Civil Code, is not in dispute. 6. Now, I wish briefly to call your attention to what we consider our rights as Christians, and as citizens of the Commonwealth. We do not believe that the observance of Sunday, the first3 day of the week, is taught in the Bible. Webster’s Dictionary expresses the recognized conviction of Christendom when it says the ten commandments are a summary of moral law. And we read in express terms in that only instrument which was ever spoken and written by the Creator himself to and for man—the Decalogue—“The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” Having never found in the Scriptures any repeal or amendment of this law, we feel bound by our respect for the authority of God, and by our fear of the consequences of the coming Judgment day, to keep this law exactly as Jehovah delivered it. This is our most solemn and conscientious conviction of duty. 7. In thus avowing our position, we feel that it is our right to protest against the injustice which is done to us by those who have classed us with those who deny the authority of the Scriptures; and with those who, we think, are perverting the Scriptures to uphold that which is offensive to morality. We rest upon the plain reading of God’s commandment, the authority of which is undisputed. And we further object to the injustice done to us by those who say we are joining hands with the whisky interest. It is true that we would separate the questions of Sunday and of temperance, and let each stand upon its own merits. But we are known to be radical temperance reformers; most of our people would vote without any hesitation for a law prohibiting the sale of liquor seven days in the week. 8. We declare that the present Sunday Law, as a religious law, is unjust, inasmuch as its intent is to compel us to observe the practices of somebody else’s religion which are inconsistent with our religion. If we can prove that our religious practice is based upon the plainly-expressed commandment of God, and that we are conscientious in its observance, we deny the right of any man, or of all men, of the church or the State, or of the church and State united, to compel us to act contrary thereto; to yield our conscientious convictions to please others, whose convictions cannot be more sacred than ours, and whose claim for Sunday as a “Christian Sabbath” is not beyond reasonable dispute. If we are wrong in this position, then Luther and his associates were wrong, and the martyrs were no better than fanatics. 9. We claim that it is only an evasion on the part of any to say that this law is not unjust—that it will not interfere with our religion, because it leaves us free to abstain from labor on the seventh day. Which is to say that it will permit us to act out our own religion provided that we will conform to theirs also! But that is impossible, for the commandment gives us six days for labor, as plainly as it prohibits labor on the seventh day. 10. It is unjust because, in compelling us to observe a day which our consciences cannot accept, it denies us the right to observe the God-given seventh day, or, otherwise, it deprives us of one-sixth of our right of subsistence, by declaring that we shall not keep the seventh day and labor six days. 11. We do not hesitate to say—can any deny?—that the law discriminates against our religion, which we think is in strict conformity to the Bible, and in favor of the religion of some other religious bodies. For they are left free to carry out their religion and labor six days, a privilege which it denies to us. But such discrimination is exactly what our Constitution expressly says shall not be made in this State. It is therefore—it must be—unconstitutional. We do not deny that it is the law of the land, because a majority of the Court has so decided. Still, I do not consider that there is any presumption in my statement. For very able jurists, both in and out of the Court, entirely disagree with that decision. And it appears evident to me, and to many others, that that decision, though no doubt arrived at from data which appeared sufficient to justify it, is nevertheless inconsistent with the known difference between a mere “police regulation” and a law which plainly discriminates in matters of religion; and inconsistent with the sacred principles of human rights as I have endeavored to present them to you. 12. But we institute no warfare against the law. We are liberal in our views and in our feelings. While the Constitution guarantees to us equal rights with others, we ask for something at least looking toward equality in religious rights and privileges. In behalf of our churches I have expressed our full consent to Sunday as a legal day of rest. I believe that that is as far as the State should go; that it should leave all questions of religion to each individual’s conscience. But if you, as a political party, shall consider it wise to indorse the religious aspect of the question, then we ask you to give your influence in favor of having bestowed upon us the same privilege which is bestowed upon those of our faith and practice by most other States, namely, that we be exempted from the penalties which may be meted to those who labor on Sunday, and who do not religiously observe any other day. We highly commend the spirit of a resolution lately passed by a Republican Convention in this city, which declared in favor of “such amendment as will more fully equalize the rights and privileges of our citizens thereunder.” I am happy to appeal to you, because this question has already become prominent in the Conventions of this party. And, the Republican party is at present the dominant party of the State. Although your action can represent no finality, as it has yet to go before the whole people for consideration and review, your action here may go far toward shaping the election, and perhaps giving character to the Legislature which will, no doubt, be called upon to act further in reference to this matter. You have it largely in your power to secure to us the rights which constitutionally belong to us. I am making no plea in behalf of our religion as such, further than is necessary to present the justice of our claim. I ask your favorable consideration of our request, because it is based on principles of right; it is in perfect accordance with the spirit of equality, which is the spirit of all our republican institutions. Thanking you for your kindness in hearing this plea, I will express my sincere desire that the God of all nations will grant to you harmony in your counsels, and will guide you to right conclusions in all your deliberations. J. H. WAGGONER, Editor “Signs of the Times,” Oakland, Cal. Who will Circulate It?
By Editor
A RESIDENT of Oakland, on reading our Address prepared for the Republican Convention, remarked: “The Democrats will take that and circulate it.” Our reply was: “Perhaps they will, but it was not written for that purpose. If the Republicans had even recognized our reasonable request, it would have taken it out of the hands of the Democrats.” We do not, and will not, identify ourselves with any political party. We distinctly said to delegates at the Convention in Sacramento, that we would not promise the vote of any man. We had not asked a single person how he would vote. We were not there as a politician, but to represent a principle of justice and religious right. We hoped that that convention would at least show such tolerance of those who keep “the Sabbath day according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56), as to recommend the exemption from Sunday penalties which is granted in most other States. But the committee which prepared the platform understood the pressure which had been brought to bear on the party better than we. They no doubt apprehended the result of acceding to our request. When we saw the manifestation over the reading of the Sunday plank, we were at once convinced that even the least favor shown to any who do not do homage to “the venerable day of the sun” would have been fatal to the resolution in that form. By fearing to do a simple act of justice they threw the whole matter into the hands of the Democrats. We stand upon religious rights. They adopt the church festival as a part of their political code without the least show of favor to dissenting Christians. We think they erred, and erred to their own injury. There is a principle involved in this controversy which politicians fail to appreciate. We are earnestly desirous that this principle shall be clearly set forth to all the citizens of the State. We are now calling upon our brethren and friends to assist us in its circulation. If others see fit to circulate it, that is no matter of ours. We honestly prepared the address for the sole purpose of influencing the action of the Republican Convention, and hoping that, through their delegates, it might go into every county in the State. We failed in our effort. Now the Republicans have given their political opponents the advantage in respect to the recognition of this principle, which we know is right. They have no reason to blame us. WHEN the “Sunday plank” was read by Judge Latimer, Chairman of the Platform Committee, there followed a scene which almost defies description. There were over four hundred and fifty delegates. Beside these, every available space on the floor was filled, as also the galleries. The whole multitude, with few exceptions, broke forth into a loud shout of applause. Men rose from their seats and threw their hats into the air, and fairly screamed in their exuberance of delight. As this subsided and the Judge was about to read the next paragraph, the tumultuous applause was renewed, and for some time the reader was compelled to wait for silence. As the noise again subsided, Mr. Pixley, editor of the Argonaut, a very recent convert to the Sunday cause, arose and moved three cheers for the triumph of this great principle! The delegates sprang to their feet and gave three cheers as heartily as their wills and lungs enabled them. When they sat down, and the Chairman was about to proceed, the applause was again renewed, and the wild tumult still kept the reader in waiting. He was requested to read it again, but declined. In all that we ever witnessed in public assemblies, we never saw the like before. Meeting a gentleman on the street, who was in the San Jose Convention but repudiated the anti-Sunday plank there adopted, we remarked that no other point in the platform created any enthusiasm; he replied: “That is the only issue between the parties in this campaign.” And so it is. Some of the papers say the most important question is that of anti-monopoly. But the platforms of the two parties agree in this; so that, in truth, the only real issue in the coming election is the Sunday question! Would any one but a Seventh-day Adventist have believed that this would ever be the case in American politics? But it is only a political-religious enthusiasm; there is not a particle of reverence in it.