“Home Protection

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Mar 2, 1882

“Home Protection.

Meeting of the Association. Johnson’s Resolutions and the Pacific Press. The Audience Dislikes Them and Passes a Substitute.”

SUCH was the heading of a lengthy report in the Oakland Daily Times of Friday, Feb. 24. The resolutions referred to contained three preambles, the first calling attention to the fact that “Mr. White, the proprietor of the Pacific Press” had been arrested for violating the Sunday Law, by “some person, unknown to the society;” the second, concerning Mr. White and the Seventh-day Adventists, who “religiously regard and strictly keep the seventh day as the Sabbath;” the third, that “the design of the Sunday Law is not to disturb any who conscientiously observe Saturday as the holy Sabbath, unless they willfully disturb the peace and quiet of the Christian people on the Lord’s day.” Then follow two resolutions—the first expressing disapproval of the arrest of Mr. White; the second demanding “the arrest and punishment of all persons, especially liquor sellers, who not only keep no Sabbath or weekly rest, but who, only for the sake of money, contemptuously disregard the law,” etc.

Neither party can well complain of these resolutions; they are kind and respectful in their tone and matter. Only we cannot accept the writer’s statement of “the design of the Sunday Law.” He has no authority to so expound the law. We can quote the utterances of religious papers and other religious teachers which plainly look to the enforcement of the law upon all classes, and some of these have explicitly said that the Seventh-day Adventists can have no reasonable cause of complaint if the law is enforced upon them. However good the intentions of the writer may be, he cannot possibly control the operation of the law, nor the action of these who are trying to enforce it.

As for the disclaimer of having any responsibility for the arrest of the Superintendent of the “Pacific Press,” that is quite unnecessary. We have no personal feeling in the matter. The “League of Freedom” also disclaim it; they say they did not cause the arrest. We do not care who caused it. The action of the person was quite correct if the law is right in principle. We say it is not. It is oppressive and unjust; contrary to the spirit of our republican government, as it is certainly contrary to the plain terms of the law of God. After considerable discussion a substitute for these resolutions was adopted, to wit: “That the Society disclaims any connection with the arrest of Mr. White.”

But the position taken by some responsible and prominent members of the Association demand special notice. We quote from the report:—

Mr. L. thought that it looked as though the Seventh-day Adventists were fighting the Home Protection Society. They wanted Saturday. It had been asserted that Mr. White was working in the interest of the League of Freedom.”

Probably it has been so asserted; and we have the very best of reasons for saying that Mr. L—— knew that the assertion was false. Why, then, should he throw out the assertion if not to fasten on the minds of his hearers a false impression in regard to us. As for his statement that “it looked as though the Seventh-day Adventists were fighting the Home Protection Society,” there is no ground for it. We have repeatedly published that as far as the fight is concerned, we stand neutral. We cannot, in justice to our convictions of duty to the law of God, aid in the enforcement of Sunday by civil law. And we are equally unable to affiliate with the elements which are “fighting” the law. We have carefully reviewed the ground, and counted the cost. We are well aware that we must suffer the ill-will of both the Home Protection Association and the League of Freedom. But we shall strive to have the approbation of the great Author of all law, the Judge of all the earth. Again we quote from the same person;—

“Mr. L——: I am not opposed to the resolutions. It looked as though the Pacific Press was playing in the hands of the League of Freedom when they issued a pamphlet advocating the enforcement of the Sunday Law on Saturday. The League of Freedom approached the Pacific Press and stated that it would pay expenses in case of an arrest.”

Mr. L. is a prominent member of that Association, and no doubt wishes to be considered an intelligent one; but in this sentence he has certainly subjected himself to well-deserved ridicule. 1. In the tract to which he refers we repudiate entirely the idea of enforcing the Sabbath on any body. And 2. The “enforcement of the Sunday Law on Saturday” is worthy of the most brilliant punster that ever graced the “Emerald Isle.” If Mr. L. had read the tract he knew better than to make such statements; if he had not read it, and knew nothing about it, he was poorly qualified to offer an opinion. Either way he would have done better service to himself at least, by keeping silent. The nearest to the truth of any statement made by him is that “the League of Freedom approached the Pacific Press and stated that it would pay expenses in case of an arrest.” We cannot say that this is true; we do not know that the persons giving such information had any authority to speak for the League of Freedom. We do know that the League would not pay any expense incurred by us unless we joined the League, which the people of Oakland and elsewhere well know we could not do. We shall not consider it necessary to explain our relation to the parties further. We cannot give understanding to those who would rather that the facts were different from what they are. The following we copy from The Independent, of Oakland, a paper which is favorable to the Association. Noticing this meeting it said:—

“Several members were of the opinion that the Seventh-day Adventists were in sympathy with the League of Freedom. These gentlemen had evidently not perused the pamphlet recently issued by the Adventists, in which they declare themselves in favor of suppressing the whisky traffic entirely.”

And this position has been advocated by us for several years in this paper—the SIGNS OF THE TIMES—which is the organ of the Seventh-day Adventists on this Coast. Everybody knows, who knows us at all, that we are radical temperance people. And Mr. L. heard our avowal once in person that we would heartily unite with them to enforce a law for the suppression of the sale of liquors seven days in a week. He who endeavors now to place us in a false light on this question must expect to have it recoil upon himself.

It is a small matter for the Association to disclaim complicity with the arrest of Mr. White unless they disclaim the statements of their own officers. The report contains the following:—

“Mr. S.—If Mr. White is going to fight the law, he is our enemy and we must fight him from the word go. If he is going to play into the hands of the League of Freedom, I for one will prosecute him.”

S. may stand for “Secretary” or for a proper name, or for both. We suppress the names as they would be of no interest to our thousands of readers. Were not Mr. S. a prominent member—made so, at least—we should not consider such statements worthy of notice. As it is we pass them without comment. Further on he said: “We hope the Seventh-day Adventists will close their place of business on Sunday and come in with us.” In view of the many strong reasons we have given why we cannot unite with them, we must say he is a very hopeful man.

One of the most surprising statements made in the meeting is the following:—

“Mr. W.—Mr. White has seen fit to plead not guilty and it would be inconsistent for the Society to step in and defend him. If he had pleaded guilty I would be in favor of the Society paying the fine.”

Mr. W. is a worthy and intelligent member of the Association; no one will question this. How he could expect us to plead guilty is a marvel. We have neither asked nor expected either the Association or the League to pay a fine for us. We have no idea of paying a fine, either in person or by proxy, until we are convicted in court. We cannot think it possible that Mr. W. weighed well the import of his words. He must know what would be the effect on our future course if we should plead guilty. If he will for a moment put himself in our place, as acting on our convictions of the principles involved, he would see the utter impossibility of our doing any such thing.

Again, his words prove that we are right in denying the correctness of Mr. Johnson’s exposition of “the design of the law.” If the law in its design does not reach us, why should we be asked to plead guilty, or to pay a fine? Do they expect us to pay a fine under the law contrary to the design of the law? If such is the operation of the law it should be repealed because of its iniquity. One thing is very evident: The members of this Association have not carefully reviewed the ground, or else they have no ground in common on which to stand. Truth is consistent. They would appear to better advantage if they would take a position in harmony with the truth of God.

Our “Sunday Law Tract” seems to have caused them much uneasiness. We expected that it would, and are pleased that it has. In the sight of the world we have placed a responsibility on them to meet its Scriptural reasons. We close by quoting one excellent saying made in this meeting of the Association by one of its members:—

“Mr. A. said that there was a higher law than the law of man—the law of God. He did not believe in violating the law of God by enforcing the law of the Legislature.”