The Sunday Law by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Mar 30, 1882

The Sunday Law.

By Editor

Arrests under the Sunday Law last Monday, March 27, in San Francisco, numbered nearly 400, the whole number in that city amounting to nearly 1,200. Trade in some kinds of business was considerably less last Sunday than on the Sunday before; but in general there was but little difference.

There seems to be a growing distrust in regard to this movement on the part of the most ardent friends of the Sunday interest. One minister in San Francisco declares that the law itself is inefficient. Dr. Hemphill sees disaster in the distance. The Bulletin of March 27 contains the following notice:—

"Last evening, at the Calvary Church, Rev. John Hemphill spoke to his congregation on the Sunday law and the issues at stake. He presented many of the arguments which have become familiar by use in discussions recently. He said he was afraid that a mistake had been made by the friends of the Sunday law in bringing up the question for decision just at the present time. Circumstances at another time might be more favorable for success. He thought that the next Legislature would take measures to repeal the law. A majority of its opponents would in all probability be members of that body."

Major Whittle, the evangelist, after listening to two ministers who urged the rigid enforcement of the Sunday Law, said it would be better if the clergy preached less about the law and more of the gospel; that the present excitement about enforcing a State law will react disastrously to the churches.

It is generally believed that the officers who are now so busy making arrests, have little or no sympathy with the movement. They expect, and with reason, that the courts will be blocked with the great number of cases. At San Jose the League of Freedom has caused numerous arrests of persons in various branches of business, to offset the action of those who are directed by the clergy. This creates some bad feeling, but we do not know why it should, as the law is equally against all business, and open to all complainants.

Some still persist in declaring that the whole movement is against the liquor traffic, and that the law is only a temperance law. One man in San Francisco said the law only forbid visiting the corner saloons on Sunday! And this man was dignified with the title of Judge, which increases our astonishment at his statement. We would call their attention to one interesting fact: Not one of the Justices of the Supreme Court, in delivering an opinion of this law, made any reference to the sale of liquor on Sunday or on any other day of the week. Why was this, if it was an anti-liquor law? They treat it as an anti-labor law, made for the preservation of the Sunday-Sabbath. And such is its character.