About two years ago a Good Health School was held in the Y. M. C. A. building in Leicester. The school was organized under the auspices and with the active co-operation of the Leicester Food Reform Society, and a membership of over one hundred was secured. Demonstrations in cookery, physical culture, simple remedies, and healthful dress were given in the afternoon, from three to five, and a lecture at eight o’clock each evening. Some of the leading citizens of Leicester attended, and used their influence in behalf of this enterprise; among these was a business man by the name of Mr. J. W. Goddard. He became heartily interested in the principles of healthful living as taught in the school, and made many inquiries about our health and sanitarium work. To be brief, the outcome of this was that the gentleman made an offer to turn over a well-furnished double-fronted house, and to build and equip necessary bath-rooms, for the starting of a sanitarium in Leicester. He offered the use of this property, without rent, for ten years, on the condition that a sanitarium similar in principle to the one at Battle Creek, Mich., should be started in Leicester.
ON THE LAWN OF THE LEICESTER SANITARIUM
A few weeks later this offer was presented to the General Conference Committee, then in session at Battle Creek, and it was unanimously accepted, and the committee further voted to furnish fifteen hundred dollars to aid in the establishment of the institution.
Work was started upon the bath-rooms the following July, and the institution was ready for dedication in February, 1904. The institution is well equipped with substantial and excellent furniture. No expense was spared to make the bath-rooms attractive and efficient for their purpose, and the total expenditure amounted to several thousand dollars.
The institution was dedicated the same month, and Mrs. Eufalia Sisley Richards, M. D., became resident physician and matron, and the following July she was joined by her husband, Dr. Franklin Richards, who has since been the superintendent of the sanitarium. They have spent a great deal of time in conducting Good Health Schools in the north of England, and in giving health lectures. This field educational work has been the means of making the institution known to the people, and so of bringing an increased patronage.
The institution is not large, and can accommodate only eight or ten resident patients. Of course a very much larger number can be treated in the bath-room, and there is ample scope for growth and extension of the out-patients’ department. After taking into consideration the expense involved in securing necessary medical apparatus, and in paying traveling expenses, and various other expenses incurred before the institution was ready for occupation, the sanitarium has practically been self-supporting from the day of opening, and has even shown a small gain. This is very gratifying, and through the liberal action of the conference it will be possible to establish the institution without incurring any debt.
Space forbids our giving particulars concerning the many interesting cases treated at the sanitarium. Many who have gone there have been restored to health, and have also received spiritual blessings as well. We believe that there is an encouraging future for the institution, and that it can not fail to become more and more successful. It is needless to say that the founder of the institution, Mr. Goddard, has taken a hearty interest in the place from the beginning. He has been the means of sending patients, and has made the institution known among friends and acquaintances.
The health and sanitarium work is prospering in this country, and we have many evidences of God’s blessing upon the work.
The Caterham Sanitarium has a large patronage, averaging from twenty-five to thirty patients all the time. Last autumn we rented two adjoining villas, and now we are using both of them. We feel very thankful to God for the success he is giving us.
The Good Health enjoys a splendid circulation, and is becoming self-supporting financially.
ALFRED B. OLSEN, M. D.
Spiritual Life and Faith in the Bible
“THE presence and cultivation of the spiritual life is an essential element in understanding, and, as a consequence, in maintaining faith in the Word of God. The supernatural element in the Bible is its strength; its super-reasonableness, not its unreasonableness, is its glory.”
Religious Instruction in Public Schools
By W. W. P.
Continued Agitation of the Question in Washington
The movement for the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools of the District of Columbia has precipitated what has been termed a “raging controversy.” Since the date of our last issue almost every day has developed some new contribution to this agitation. In its issue of April 1 the Washington Post contained a three-column article by Dr. R. H. McKim, the originator of this movement. This article was quite personal and severe in its tone, being directed especially against Rabbi Abram Simon, and the positions taken in his contribution to this discussion mentioned in our last issue. The following brief extracts will indicate the nature and tone of the argument:—
“The deliberate and carefully considered judgment of our Supreme Court—men of American blood and American tradition, trained jurists also—is not to be set aside by the superficial reasonings of citizens who are not such by birthright. The equal rights which America gives to her naturalized citizens do not confer upon them the gift of correctly interpreting American Constitutional history. When this clever young rabbi tells us that ‘every religious element’ was ‘eliminated from our scheme of civil government,’ he contradicts the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, which declared that this is a religious nation, citing regulations and laws connected with our civil government.”
“It is instructive to note that all the opponents of this movement harp on the same string. They know that the principle of separation of church and state is universally dear to the American people; and so they tell the public that we are proposing to attack that principle, though they know that we repudiate such a thought, and they utterly fail to show that it is involved in what we propose. Will the people allow themselves to be deluded by such assertions in default of proof?”
“Let the Christian people of this city take note of Rabbi Simon’s declaration that ‘the reading of the Bible in the public schools, or religious instruction or worship in the same, are relics of the day which we have outgrown.’ This very clearly suggests the next step in the program of the Jews, and their allies, the Judaizers. . . . Next we may expect this new ‘holy alliance’ between the Jews and the Judaizers and the agnostics will attack the law making the Christian Sunday a day of rest. . . . Let the citizens of this District consider well before helping these men to drive a wedge into the heart of our Christian institutions.”
This article marked the first instance in this controversy where any writer has based the argument largely upon race prejudice and an appeal to religious bigotry. The whole community seemed to be stirred with the unfairness of this procedure, if we may judge from the fact that in the Washington Post, of Monday, April 3, there appeared six columns of letters dealing with this subject, all except two of which handled Dr. McKim and his argument without gloves. It is, of course, impossible in our limited space to reproduce any considerable portion of these letters; but their intensely personal nature may be understood from the fact that Dr. McKim’s name appeared in them thirty-seven times, in addition to all the phrases and indirect references which kept his personality before the reader.
Extracts From Letters
The following extracts from several of these letters will indicate the character of the arguments. Referring to Dr. McKim’s claim that the Constitution provides “that the president of the United States shall be sworn upon the Holy Bible, ‘So help me God,’” one writer said, “It is evident that the good doctor omitted the trifling detail of reading that Constitution before he wrote his Jew-destroying dissertation on it. . . . However doubtful the wisdom of establishing ‘a course of readings from the Bible’ in the public schools, there can be no doubt about the necessity of introducing into the Washington pulpits ‘a course of readings’ from the Constitution of the United States.”
“The most convincing argument I’ve yet seen for the secularization of the schools is Dr. McKim’s rejoinder in the Post. Far beyond and much deeper than the reasoning and facts presented is exhibited the attitude, the very state of mind, in its clear and naked manifestation, of the ablest advocate of the religionizing of the schools. His letter is redolent of that intolerance, race prejudice, and dogmatism that liberalism fears most, and against which liberalism has wrested its hardest-won victories. . . . In view of the frank display of spirit with which this change is being advocated, have not the lovers of free thought—the most precious heritage of the ages—the right to take alarm?”
One writer urged that “the same clergy should announce the cessation on its part, of the war, waged without success for about fifteen years, to effect the enactment of a law to enable the clergy, through informers and spies, to put Jews, Second Adventists, and others on the chain-gang.”
“If lack of appreciation of American ideals is any evidence, it would appear that Dr. McKim’s ancestors were recent immigrants. . . . Not to go outside of the Christian church there is sufficient difference of opinion about the basis of ‘morality’ to render any such text-book either partizan from one point of view or ineffective from another, and the fact that Dr. McKim characterizes those who oppose his proposal as ‘the Jews, and their allies, the Judaizers, and the agnostics,’ shows that he would be contented with nothing short of a certain alleged Christianity which even many Christians repudiate.
“Whether Dr. McKim relishes it or not, the evolutionist is the man whom he must deal with, and he is getting to be a numerous quantity both in and out of the church. . . . It is creedalism Dr. McKim wishes to push into the schools in the name of teaching morals. He thinks we ‘fail to show’ wherein there is a union of church and state in his plan. By ‘union’ he means a state-ordered and state-supported church. Steps in the direction of an end are not consummations, it is true; but they are steps all the same. If taxing people to teach his theology to children is not a step toward such union, it would be difficult to conceive what would be.”
Resolutions by the Baptists
In all three papers of the following day, April 4, there appeared a report of the action taken by the Baptist ministers of this city, which we give herewith in full:—
“The Baptist Ministers’ Conference, at its meeting held in the Calvary Baptist church yesterday, adopted unanimously the report of a committee appointed to draft a statement defining its position relative to the question now pending of religious instruction in the public schools. The committee consisted of Revs. Drs. S. H. Greene, pastor of the Calvary Baptist Church; C. F. Winbighler, pastor of the First Baptist Church, and J. J. Muir, pastor of the Temple Baptist Church. The report is as follows:—
“The Baptist Ministers’ Conference deplores the present agitation in reference to the introduction of religious instruction in our public schools as unnecessary, unwise, and impolitic.”
“It is unnecessary because there is nothing in the present condition of our public schools in the District of Columbia to warrant it. It certainly can not be said that any increase of crime at the national capital has been due to the neglect of proper instruction in our schools.”
“It is unwise because it produces friction among citizens, and between faiths, and arouses prejudices for which there appears no adequate justification.”
“It is impolitic because, as it is largely a ministerial movement, the cry of clericalism is in the air, and the charge is made, with some seeming reason, that the church is attempting to regulate educational matters.”
“We are of the opinion that the rules adopted by the Board of Education and now in operation confer upon the teachers all that is required to enable them to impart proper moral instruction, and that any further regulation, and particularly any course of study relating to the inculcation of religion, is to be deprecated.”
“On the general question involved in the discussion we desire to say:—
“1. That the home and the church are the recognized places for religious instruction. If either is derelict, the state is not competent to supply the deficiency; neither is it needed to supplement by any of its agencies the fidelity of either or both.”
“2. That it is not the function of the state to teach religion. It has never been conferred on it under our system of government, nor has it the accessories for such instruction.”
“3. That whenever the state has assumed that prerogative, it has transcended its legitimate sphere, and some of its citizens have been unjustly discriminated against.”
“4. That generally school Boards are so constituted and teachers appointed that their qualifications to determine and direct religious instruction are not favorable thereto. And any attempt to introduce a religious test, either in the election of trustees or in the selection of teachers, would be strongly resented by the American people.”
“5. That whenever, even in the most rudimentary manner, religious instruction has been given by the state it has opened the way for further encroachments,18with the result of sectarian strife, bitter animosity, and gross injustice.
“6. That the functions of state and church should be kept separate; each should fulfil its own mission and accomplish its own destiny within its duly appointed domain.
“7. That while we are in hearty sympathy with moral instruction in the public schools, we see no reason to recede from the position of our fathers or to depart from the traditions of our denominational history, and we therefore, as the representatives of more than six thousand white Baptists in the District of Columbia, place ourselves on record as opposed to any movement which even by implication favors religious instruction in our public schools. And we do this in the interests of the broadest charity and of the highest aims of education under our public-school system.
“8. We regret the necessity for this statement, but we feel compelled to make it since our attitude has been misunderstood and misinterpreted.”
The Post of the same date contained the following editorial, under the heading—
“Timely Word by Baptist Ministers”
“It is gratifying to the Post to observe that the movement for religious instruction in the public schools of the District of Columbia meets with the strong disapproval of church people, as well as the general public. The statement of the Baptist Ministers’ Conference, published to-day, is a clear exposition of the evils that would flow from such an effort. No more certain and speedy method of spreading discord and religious bigotry could be devised than an attempt to introduce religious teaching into schools attended by every class and condition of pupils.
“It is pointed out by the Baptist ministers that the teaching of religion is the peculiar province of the church and the home. The wonder is that, in view of the peace and harmony that have followed the absolute separation of the church and state, there could be found advocates of a reversal of the policy of the founders of the republic. The inculcation of morals common to mankind, recognized as right by Christian, Jew, and pagan, is proper in the public schools; but every child should receive his religious training at home and in the church and Sunday-school. It is not the business of government to enter into the realm of theology. It can not pass the border line without confusion and strife. If churches and homes do their duty as thoroughly as the public schools of Washington perform their work, there will be no increase of crime in the District of Columbia. If there is any increase of crime, which we doubt, certainly it can not be traced to the public schools.
“The firm stand of the Baptist ministers is commendable in the highest degree. Their statement is broad-spirited and incontrovertible. It is timely, and will have a wholesome influence in the community.”
The Post of Wednesday, April 5, contained an article by Rabbi Abram Simon, under the heading—
“Personal Reply to Dr. McKim”
This reply was “personal” indeed, and was a very severe arraignment of Dr. McKim’s ill-advised appeal to prejudice. The following extracts are sufficient to indicate this:—
“As for the Jews—well! We can consider that later on! But pray, who are the Judaizers? Why not possess the courage to mention them? Surely you did not refer to the Baptists, whose splendid and straight-forward opposition to-day’s papers disclose? Did you mean the Seventh-day Adventists, People’s Church, Unitarians, and probably Catholics, whose leaders have thus far withheld their views? . . . As for our American traditions and inability, therefore, to understand or appreciate American Constitutional liberty, your statement would be ridiculous were it not so tragically pathetic. Personally, I was born in the South, where, in behalf of the divinity of slavery, you bore arms. Wherein are you any the better prepared to appreciate Americanism than I or my parents? . . . Do you remember the reply that Beaconsfield gave an impudent Englishman who upbraided him for his race and religion, as he rose to make a speech? ‘When the ancestors of that gentleman who just spoke were naked and wild savages, roaming wild in the woods, mine were priests and prophets of God.’”
Appeal to the Courts Possible
The Washington Evening Times of the same date contained a long article in opposition to this movement, written by Mr. Simon Wolf, a leading representative of the Jews. Mr. Wolf practically served notice that in case the Board of Education granted the petition for religious instruction, the matter would be taken before the courts. He said:—
“This principle has been brought to the attention of a large number of our State courts, and has been invariably sustained, and I venture the prediction that if the Board of Education should, through some mistaken idea of their duty, try to enforce the teaching of religion in the public schools, this question will be taken up by the friends of American liberty to the highest court of our land, to be there, once and for all, settled, not in a haphazard way, but through an exhaustive presentation of all the precedents and facts underlying this important and vital question.”
Dealing with the personal nature of Dr. McKim’s contribution, Mr. Wolf said, “No one regrets more than I do that Dr. McKim should have placed himself in such an indefensible position, as far as his attack is concerned, with those who differ from him. To arraign any of his opponents on the score of being Jews, Adventists, or Germans, is unworthy of an American or of a Christian minister. It seemed to me that I was back in the ’50’s: when the Plug-uglies were burning and murdering foreigners on the score of their religion. Indeed, one is almost constrained to believe that the good doctor is a worthy descendant of these Know-Nothings.”
Petitions Presented
At the regular weekly meeting of the Board of Education held on Wednesday evening, April 5, a committee representing those who favor the introduction of religious teaching into the public school, presented their petitions and arguments, and the whole matter was fully reported in the daily papers of April 6. One paragraph in the report runs as follows:—
“The petitions were signed by leading men of the Presbyterian, Methodist Episcopal, Congregational, Lutheran, German Reformed, Disciples of Christ, Baptist (colored), and Methodist (colored) churches of the District. It was estimated that six of the nine denominations submitting the petitions represented thirty-three thousand church-members.”
It will thus be seen that in estimating the number of petitioners the same plan was followed as was adopted by those who presented petitions to Congress in behalf of Sunday laws; namely, counting the whole membership of those churches who were represented on the petitions by a few individual signers. This is simply another indication of the fact that this is a church movement, and that those who favor it are acting as church-members rather than as citizens.
Another Hearing
No action was taken by the Board of Education upon the petitions presented, and it was announced that an opportunity would be given on Wednesday evening, April 12, for those who oppose the movement to present their petitions and arguments. A report of this meeting and of further experiences in this movement will appear in our next issue.
W. W. P.
The Wisconsin Sunday Bill Defeated
By W. A. Colcord
OSTENSIBLY in the interests of the laboring men, under the direction of the Wisconsin Sunday Rest Day Association, and backed by strong church influences, a bill was introduced into the Wisconsin Legislature, February 9, requiring employers to grant their employees fifty-two rest days a year, these to be given weekly as far as practicable, and seven of these at least to be on “the first day of the week.”
The legislature had decided that no new bills could be introduced after February 10, and was planning to adjourn19by February 25, if possible. It will be seen, therefore, that the friends and promoters of this bill waited until almost the latest possible moment to bring it forward, hoping, no doubt, to have it carried through quickly, and with as little opportunity given for opposition to it as possible.
Immediately upon hearing of the character and terms of the bill, we addressed a letter to each member of the legislature, calling attention to its origin, its religious character and evident intent, as revealed in the words, “seven of these at least to be on the first day of the week,” so adroitly woven into it, and how it would operate upon observers of the seventh day of the week. Each letter was accompanied with some of our religious liberty leaflets. We also urged our brethren in Wisconsin to do all they could, by petitions and otherwise, to oppose the bill, and, if possible, to secure a hearing before the committee having the bill in charge.
This course was pursued. Petitions were circulated; letters were written; and a hearing, lasting four hours, at which the friends and opponents of the bill were present and made their arguments, was held March 21; and although the bill got so far as to be reported back from the committee, it was gloriously defeated in the Assembly on March 27, when it came up for final action.
Writing under date of March 30, Elder H. W. Reed, our religious liberty secretary for Wisconsin, says: “I have good news to tell you. The bill 339 A has been defeated. All the praise be unto our God.”
A member of the Assembly, writing to Elder Reed of the fate of the bill, says: “339 A has been defeated. Before its defeat I offered an amendment to strike out all reference to Sunday rest, or rather, I should say I had this done. Thus you will understand my attitude on rest days. However, I am sorry to report that the reform crowd defeated the bill in its amended form.”
This shows that the enforcement of “Sunday rest” was the real thing the “reform crowd” were after all the time, and that after this element was eliminated from the bill, they had no further interest in it,—were, in fact, opposed to it. A law providing for fifty-two rest days a year, but not requiring at least some of these to fall on Sunday, was not what they were working for. This demonstrates how much real interest these Sunday Rest Day Associations have in “the poor laboring man,” and the shallowness and falsity of the “civil sabbath” plea.
In a letter dated March 29, Elder Wm. Covert, president of the Wisconsin Conference, says: “I received word this noon from Senator —, of Wisconsin, stating that the bill 339 A was overwhelmingly defeated on the floor of the Wisconsin Assembly, Monday evening, March 27. This is glad news to us. We had been working hard to bring about this result, and we thank the Lord for the victory that he has given the truth.
“It was my privilege to be present when a hearing on the bill was given before the committee, and put in an earnest protest against it. Elder Jones was present, and rendered excellent service. I enclose a copy of the letter that I sent to each member of the Senate, and to thirty-five members of the Assembly.
“This affair has given us an excellent opportunity to present the truth to our lawmakers. Many others have also received instruction of the same kind. We had but a very short time to work after the bill was introduced, as the Sunday rest people did not present it until the last day of their opportunity,—doubtless because they were watching us, and did not want us to have much time to work against it. As it was, we secured nearly three thousand signatures upon our petition against it. If we had had more time, we could have secured a great many more. Nearly all the business men in several cities signed the petition against the bill. It has aroused our brethren in Wisconsin to the situation, and we expect to continue working with the people upon this theme.”
We are glad for this another victory to the cause of truth and freedom. In this we have another evidence of the Lord’s willingness and readiness to work with us and through us, when we, with energy, take up and do the work he has assigned us, warning men against false worship and the enforcement of false worship by law.
We commend what has been done in Wisconsin, also what was recently done in Missouri, as reported in a late number of the REVIEW, to our brethren everywhere. When evil seemed almost sure to triumph, victories have been gained. Let all take courage. Let these victories be followed up, and the principles of truth disseminated far and wide. Now is the time to sow the good seeds of truth. W. A. COLCORD.
Religious Instruction in Public Schools
In response to a letter enclosing a copy of our leaflet “Religion in the Public Schools,” Mrs. H. K. Schoff, president of the National Congress of Mothers, wrote to Miss Fannie M. Dickerson, editor of the Youth’s Instructor, a letter from which we make the following extract:—
“The National Congress of Mothers is an absolutely non-sectarian body. Its work is so broad that it includes women of every sect. I am sure that it is not the purpose of any of its leaders to put into the public schools religious instruction. Unfortunately, as I think, a resolution to further the introduction of the Bible into the public schools was passed. I think that moral instruction would have been the term to use. Honesty, truthfulness, unselfishness, and qualities of this kind are desired by every one, and simple training in moral qualities can not be objected to. In a country which includes people of so many ideals, it would be impossible to introduce religious instruction in the public schools, and I am very sure that I voice the sentiment of the officers, in saying that there will be no effort on the part of the National Congress of Mothers to introduce any code of instruction which would not receive the sanction of all creeds.”
The Tent for Ceylon
SOME time ago the Healdsburg young people responded to Elder Armstrong’s call for a tent for Ceylon. Brother H. G. Lucas reports that the fifty-foot tent, made in the college factory, is off for Ceylon, ropes, rings, and all complete. All will be interested in the following paragraphs from Brother Lucas’s letter to the Mission Board:—
“The ten or eleven volunteers for work met every difficulty, until, after three months from the day the beginning was made, the tent was finished, shipped, and dedicated free from debt. The young people’s society has the morning service every third Sabbath, when they render a missionary program, and take up the regular second Sabbath collection. At this service, February 17, I presented the history of this work for Ceylon, and after reading the financial statement, we knelt and dedicated this tent to the work of the third angel’s message in that field. The report was, in part, as follows:—
“‘The following amounts were raised for the Ceylon tent: By the Healdsburg Young People’s Society, $102.70; by Sister Chaney, South Africa, $50; by the Sanitarium, Cal., church, $15.65; total, $168.35.
“‘The tent itself cost $150; mast ring, brake block, and guy-ropes, $12; total, $162, leaving $6.35 to be applied on the freight. Here are some items of interest:—
“‘Brother Charles Peter, of San Francisco, raised $10 in a short time. A little boy about seven years of age secured $2.15, and sent it in. The wholesale house in San Francisco from which tent material has been purchased gave one hundred pounds of rope, worth $10. Some money was sent in from an appeal placed in the Recorder. About twelve young people in Healdsburg had a share in securing the necessary means, and upon them, as well as upon those who gave, God will bestow a blessing, and we shall yet hear of souls being saved in Ceylon as the result of providing this tent for that needy isle.’
“‘We have since received enough to pay all the freight, and the tent was shipped February 25. This was a good work. Our printer, plumber, and nurse helped materially. Our blacksmith made the mast ring, and donated part of the price. It was the strongest and best ring that he had made. Our prayers still continue for the work and workers in the regions beyond.”
Religious Liberty Notes
By R. C. Russell
A son of a United States senator delivered a telling speech against the Sunday rest bill that was recently so overwhelmingly defeated in the Wisconsin Legislature.
Brother Frank Hinkly, of Boston, writes: “There is now a bill before the State Senate, which has passed its first reading, and, if passed, will close everymost thing but sacred(?) concerts here.” There is also a half-column editorial in the Washington Post of April 5, in which it discusses this proposed New England Sunday law. The editor makes reference to Cotton Mather, and says, “Something of the old-time spirit still lingers around Bunker Hill.”
Elder T. H. Purdon, of Rutland, Vt., writes the following concerning the new tract on “Religion in the Public Schools:” “I long for the time to come when a systematic arrangement shall be entered into and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the power which the Lord has vouchsafed to his people, to place the tract you refer to in the hands of the teachers everywhere, and all other tracts and literature necessary to place the light before the people. It seems to be just the opportune time to circulate this tract. The question at issue now in Washington will be studied all over the country, especially by leaders and teachers along educational lines, and ought to be studied by every parent in the land.”
We quote the following item from the Workers’ Bulletin of Des Moines, Iowa: “We have had the pleasure of reading from Washington papers of the adoption by the clergymen of that city of the report recommending religious instruction in the public schools. It is very evident that public opinion is divided on the subject, and that many people are in favor of numerous measures that tend toward religious intolerance; and, therefore, even the most conservative must see clearly that the move to Washington was made not a bit too soon to place us in an advantageous position for holding in check some of the fast-rising tendencies toward evil.”
B. E. Connerly, superintendent of the Porto Rico Mission field, sends the following encouraging report of a victory over a Sunday bill there: “I write a few words this week to tell you of the victory over the Sunday law which the20Lord has gained for us here in Porto Rico. I knew it was up, and that the ministers and missionaries were pressing the matter as hard as possible, and I made one trip to San Juan to work against it, but I came away feeling that my efforts were almost lost. I made up my mind, however, to be on hand again when it came up for settlement, but while on my way there, I met a man from the House of Delegates on the train, and he told me that it had passed that house with full vote. I felt much disappointed, and had quite a talk with the man about it, and he was not a little interested. I did all that it seemed to me I could, but I confess I really had little hope that it would not pass the executive council, there seemed to be so much in favor of it; but last Tuesday evening at about ten o’clock a telegram came from the capital from the man I had met on the train, saying that it had not passed.”
R. C. RUSSELL.
A Letter to Legislators
THE following is a copy of a letter which Elder Wm. Covert addressed to the members of the Wisconsin Legislature, protesting against the passage of the Sunday bill recently introduced and finally defeated in the Assembly of this legislative body:—
“I respectfully but earnestly protest against the passage of the Bill No. 339 A, introduced Feb. 9, 1905, by Hon. Mr. McKenzie. The promoters of this bill claim that its purpose is to secure one day’s rest in seven for employees. But this one day upon which the rest is to be secured is the first day of the week,—a day recognized by the promoters of this bill as the Sabbath,—a day to be religiously observed. This is, therefore, asking for religious legislation.
“This bill is one among a number of others which has been prepared through the counsel of the Sunday Rest Day Association of Wisconsin, with the design of giving that association a kind of paternal oversight in matters pertaining to both church and state in Wisconsin. You can find this bill printed in the Northwestern Mail, published at Madison, Feb. 3, 1905, six days before it was introduced to the honorable body of lawmakers in the State.
“This federation of churches in Wisconsin is undoubtedly the outgrowth of the National Reform Party, which first took an organized form Feb. 3, 1863, at Xenia, Ohio. The purpose of this organization is expressed in its convention held in Mansfield, Ohio, in the year 1879, which says: ‘It seeks such an amendment to the national Constitution as will indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of the government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.’
“After twenty-nine years of ardent labor to secure such an amendment, they did at last secure, in 1892, a decision that this is a Christian nation. Since that time they have practically demanded that the lawmaking bodies of the States and of the nation shall be their servants to enact such laws as these associations may desire to have passed. It seems that their all-absorbing desire is to control, by civil enactment, the religious practises of the people of the whole country. This effort is being made in spite of the Declaration of Independence, and in spite of the plain declaration of individual rights in matters of religion in the Constitution of the United States, and also of the several States which compose our national Union.
“It is fully believed by the writer that Christianity is just what the people need. But Christianity is not arbitrary nor dictatorial. When Christ was upon earth, he said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world.’ The great principle of Christianity is well expressed in the golden rule, which says, ‘Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.’ No one can, in harmony with the religion of Christ, undertake to compel an individual to do some service contrary to his own conscience. But the bill 339 A does ask some to violate their own conscience. It does practically ask every employer of labor in the State of Wisconsin to have those whom he employs rest at least seven first-days in the year. This is asking for religious legislation.
“Now there are at present one hundred churches of Seventh-day Adventists in the State of Wisconsin, and quite a number of Seventh-day Baptists, besides many other citizens who religiously observe the seventh day of the week. These people are good, law-abiding citizens. But if the bill under consideration should be enacted into law, then these people would be compelled to do a thing which is contrary to their sincere conviction of what is right, or else to live in constant violation of a law of the State. The bill is virtually seeking to compel by law some people to act contrary to their own convictions of right. It may not be so intended, but it would lead to religious persecution, and this is not a thing desired by the lawmaking power of the State of Wisconsin.
“Having from sincere religious convictions sacredly observed the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord for a period of thirty-seven years, I have felt it my duty to respectfully offer this protest.”
