Untitled article by D. T. Jones

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · September 15, 1892

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 36

Ought it to Close on Sunday?

By D. T. Jones

Those who have been watching the trend of religious thought during the last decade, and have noted the advances which the Church has been making toward the civil power, will perhaps be interested to know how the supreme religio-civil question now before the public, namely, the closing of the World's Fair on Sunday, is regarded by the leading journals and ministers of California. The Examiner, of San Francisco, in its issue of July 17 contained the following special despatch from Washington:—

Matters of national import in Congress which have divided the parties appear to be thoroughly overshadowed by the World's Fair Sunday closing, combat waged between the Senate and the House. The conflict was launched last Wednesday when Senator Quay, the eminent Pennsylvania moralist, sprang an amendment to the Sunday Civil bill (in which the World's Fair appropriation is incorporated), providing that the Fair be closed tighter than wax on Sunday in all its departments. The opposition rallied, but the Sabbatarians carried their point by the heavy majority of 45 to 11. Not even the art galleries were exempt from the rigorous operation of the new proviso.

The question of closing the World's Fair on Sunday was submitted to the leading pastors of San Francisco, and elicited from them opinions as follows:—

Rev. C. L. Miel, editor of the Pacific Churchman, said:—

When the discussion on the Sunday opening or closing of the World's Fair began, I wrote as follows: “Shall the World's Fair be opened on Sunday or shall it not? The arguments on both sides will readily suggest themselves. The main one for the opening of the Fair is that Sunday is the only holiday of the workingmen; per contra, it is urged that Sunday has, in America, taken upon it the distinct character of a holy day, and that the proposed departure would amount to desecration. It is time the press, pulpit, and people should realize, as concerns Sunday, that recreation and desecration are distinctly different. There is a recreation which consecrates, and there is a recreation that desecrates. So far as the World's Fair is concerned, there seems to be a middle course that should recommend itself to all but the extremists of both parties, those who favor and those who do not favor the opening of the Fair on Sunday. This is simply to open the Fair on Sunday afternoon at one half the price of the usual admission. Sunday could thus be preserved as a holy day first, and a holiday as a holiday. They believe that the day is one of recreation of soul and body. They recreate the soul by public observance of prescribed religious duties. They recreate the body in whatever decent, healthful, agreeable way, they may choose. They, like the others, have a perfect right to do so. They, like the others, have no moral right to enforce their practices upon those who differ from them. This is a free country, and in nothing more free than this liberty of religious opinions and practices. To open the World's Fair on Sunday is not to compel those who do not believe in Sunday opening to enter its gates and perambulate its grounds. But to close the World's Fair on Sunday is, in no slight sense, to compel an observance of the day which a majority of our citizens do not believe in. As no one is under compulsion to go to the Fair on Sunday, so, also, no one should be under compulsion not to go. The question of attendance or non-attendance is purely a question of individual conscience. As to the question of opening or closing, I do not believe in denying to two large classes of people the privilege of attending the Fair on Sunday, because a minority, however respectable and well-intentioned, desires the gates closed on that day. Beyond this there remains the fact that to many Sunday is the only day when they can attend the Fair without a loss in wages, which they can ill afford, or not afford at all. I am now, as I have been from the first, in favor of opening the Fair on Sunday. It was in deference to a sentiment which I appreciate and do not think it just to ignore that I suggested, as a compromise, the opening of the Fair on Sunday afternoons.”

The foregoing was written in July, 1890, and during the interval I have written in the same strain. I have come in for my full share of criticism—favorable, adverse, good, and ill-natured. I have followed carefully the views of men whose opinions are worthy of consideration, but as yet have seen no sufficient reason for changing my own. The question, after all, is one of Sunday observance. It is well to remember that Sunday in the United States has a civil as well as a religious character. A large class of our citizens observe the day solely from a religious standpoint. Holding rigidly to the letter of the fourth commandment, they apply every jot and tittle of it to the Christian Sunday. Their observance of Sunday is strictly and solely ecclesiastical. They have a perfect right to hold their opinions and practice them. They have, however, no moral right to compel others who do not share those opinions to act as if they did. Another and a larger class of citizens do not mark their Sundays by any religious observance. They regard and observe Sunday as a civil holiday. They, like the former class, have a perfect right to do so, provided their observance is within the law. They have, however, no moral right to compel the former to close their churches, and spend their Sunday as a civil holiday. But there is a third, and by far the larger, class of citizens who observe Sunday in both characters, religious and civil, as a holy day and as a holiday. They believe that the day is one of recreation of soul and body. They recreate the soul by public observance of prescribed religious duties. They recreate the body in whatever decent, healthful, agreeable way, they may choose. They, like the others, have a perfect right to do so. They, like the others, have no moral right to enforce their practices upon those who differ from them. This is a free country, and in nothing more free than this liberty of religious opinions and practices. To open the World's Fair on Sunday is not to compel those who do not believe in Sunday opening to enter its gates and perambulate its grounds. But to close the World's Fair on Sunday is, in no slight sense, to compel an observance of the day which a majority of our citizens do not believe in. As no one is under compulsion to go to the Fair on Sunday, so, also, no one should be under compulsion not to go. The question of attendance or non-attendance is purely a question of individual conscience. As to the question of opening or closing, I do not believe in denying to two large classes of people the privilege of attending the Fair on Sunday, because a minority, however respectable and well-intentioned, desires the gates closed on that day. Beyond this there remains the fact that to many Sunday is the only day when they can attend the Fair without a loss in wages, which they can ill afford, or not afford at all. I am now, as I have been from the first, in favor of opening the Fair on Sunday. It was in deference to a sentiment which I appreciate and do not think it just to ignore that I suggested, as a compromise, the opening of the Fair on Sunday afternoons.

Rev. John E. Cottle, rector of St. Bridget's, said:—

The keeping of the Exposition open on Sunday may become the occasion of the neglect of religious duties on the part of a great many. After all, six days in each week seem quite sufficient to enable people who wish to see the Exhibition to see all that they need to see. The Sabbath is a day set apart for religious reflection, and to bring the thoughts of man back to a consideration of the welfare of his soul; and God, who gives us six days of each week for business and pleasure, should have at least a seventh of the time reserved to his own special use, especially since he has ordained that Sunday belongs to us only in so far as we make a proper use of it.

Rev. John Kimball, of The Pacific, the organ of Congregationalism west of the Rocky Mountains, said:—

The universal opinion, both of those who are Christians and those who are merely good citizens and Americans, is that the best health and interest of the country are conserved by the observance of a rest-day, upon which all ordinary employment shall cease, and a time be given to repose and reflection, if not to religious observances.

Rev. J. A. Cruzan, Pastor of the Congregational Church:—

My principal objection to the opening of the World's Fair on Sunday is that the greatest thing that we have to show to the nations of the Old World is the American Sunday, with its worship and its rest from labor, for the workingman especially, as in contrast with the continental Sunday.

Rev. W. W. Case, of the Central Methodist Episcopal Church:—

Of course the clergy is a unit on this proposition. I do not see how any member of the profession can logically oppose the closing of the Exposition on Sunday. We are a Christian Nation, and should recognize a Christian Sabbath.

Rev. J. Q. A. Henry, one of the leaders in the Baptist denomination:—

The decision to close the World's Fair on Sunday is a move in the right direction, and a grand victory in the cause of good morals and religion.

Rev. D. Hanson Irwin, Pastor of the Howard Street Presbyterian Church:—

The Exposition should be closed on Sunday, and I am glad that a decision to that effect has been reached, though I had no doubt as to the result. An opposite course would be opposed to the best interests of religion.

Rev. W. D. Williams, Pastor of the Plymouth Congregational Church:—

I think clergymen are of one opinion concerning the subject of closing the World's Fair on Sunday. In the interests of labor, morals, and religion, the decision is a most desirable one.

The editor of the Pacific Churchman holds sound views on the question of religious liberty, and is able to give his reasons therefor. He is in favor of opening the World's Fair on Sunday, and only suggested the compromise of closing in the forenoon and opening in the afternoon out of “deference to a sentiment” which he appreciates, and does not “think it just to ignore.” All will recognize the principle which he enunciates,—when, referring to those who conscientiously observe Sunday, he says, “They have a perfect right to hold their opinions and to practice them. They have, however, no moral right to compel others who do not share those opinions to act as if they did,”—as being sound and logical. He also expresses a truth when he says, “To open the World's Fair on Sunday is not to compel those who do not believe in Sunday opening to enter its gates and perambulate its grounds. But to close the World's Fair on Sunday is, in no slight sense, to compel an observance of the day which a majority of our citizens do not believe in.”

It is gratifying to know that some men who occupy the editorial chair of the religious press, and stand in the pulpit, have the courage to express such sound sentiments on this question.

D. T. JONES.