“Look on this Picture, and on This.”
By M. C. WILCOX.
THOSE who are advocating a Sunday-Rest law are continually classing together all who oppose it. They say that here are seventh-day Christians in company with liquor-dealers, saloon-keepers, etc., and that one is known by the company he keeps. Granted that liquor-sellers are opposed to such a law. It does not make the law right because the liquor-dealer is pursuing a disreputable business. Many of these men who favor a Sunday law are Republicans, so are many liquor-dealers; but this does not prove that the principles of Republicanism are wrong. Many Sunday-law men are Democrats; many liquor-dealers are also; but that does not prove that democracy is wrong. Many prohibitionists are Sunday-law men, but, admitting Sunday laws to be wrong, this does not prove that the principles of prohibition are wrong. So, many liquor-dealers, and saloon-keepers, are in a certain way conjoined with Christians in opposing the principles involved in one certain law; but that does not prove that the Christians are wrong unless they indorse liquor-selling. And those Christians who oppose, especially, Sunday laws, most emphatically do not indorse the liquor trade or intemperance in any form. Their association with saloon-keepers is not association of persons or motives. It is purely accidental. Various parties are opposed to the law for various reasons. Infidels oppose it because they do not believe in the religion of those who advocate it; liquor-dealers, because it interferes with their ill-gotten gains; and Christians, because they have paramount faith in the Christian religion and in the liberty vouchsafed by that and which ought to be vouchsafed by civil government; because they believe such a law to be intrinsically wrong. Liquor-dealers, among others, have signed the protest against Sunday laws. They did it with their own consent, of their own free will. They did so, not because they loved the class of Christians which opposed the law better than those who favored it, but because they did not like the law. Some we presume have signed it at the invitation of Christians, but they were not compelled so to do. Others of the various denominations have done the same. The AMERICAN SENTINEL has labored to bring this question before all classes, in order that it might not pass Congress till all had had the opportunity, at least, to know the wrongfulness and downright wickedness of such legislation. In contrast with the above work of the SENTINEL, note the method of the American Sabbath Union. The majority of saloon-keepers, it is safe to say, belong to the Roman Catholic Church; yet the whole membership of that church was counted as favoring such a law on the individual indorsement alone of one member of that church. Therefore many saloon-keepers were counted, and that without even their consent. The association of liquor men with the supporters of the AMERICAN SENTINEL is purely incidental, while that of the American Sabbath Union, on its part, was premeditated and intentional. Not only that, but while the Sunday-law petition called for adults, twenty-one years of age or more, the children of all the great denominations, belonging to the churches, were counted with the adults. The constituency of the opposing petition will compare favorably with the constituency of the Sunday-law petition. And as far as methods in obtaining petitions are concerned, there is no comparison, but only contrast. The method of the SENTINEL has been open, ingenuous, and honest. The method of the American Sabbath Union has been secretive, ingenious, and dishonest. Reader, “Look on this picture, and on this,” and decide between. Truth and righteousness need not stoop to unjustifiable means.