Untitled article by W. H. M.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · January 19, 1893

Developed into a Religious Council.

By W. H. M.

THE second day’s hearing before the World’s Fair Committee very nearly developed into a religious council. The entire time of two hours was occupied by the advocates of Sunday closing. The committee room was crowded, and those present were, with few exceptions, ministers of different denominations.

Col. Elliot F. Shepard, as president of the American Sabbath Union, had the presentation of the speakers. Those who addressed the committee were, Colonel Shepard, himself; the Rev. Dr. Ramsdell, of Washington; the Rev. Joseph Cook, of Boston; the Rev. Dr. Mott, of New Jersey; the Rev. Dr. Fernley, of Philadelphia; the Rev. Dr. Brooks, of Brooklyn; the Rev. W. F. Crafts, of Pittsburg; the Rev. Dr. Hunter, of Pennsylvania; the Rev. Dr. Hamline, of Washington; the Rev. Dr. McCarroll, of Pennsylvania; the Rev. Dr. Christie, from Asia Minor; Mr. Coffin, of Iowa; the Rev. Dr. Leiper, of Pennsylvania; Mrs. La Fetra, of Washington; Mr. C. C. Evans, of Smyrna, Del. Of the four who did not address the committee in a ministerial capacity, as representing the religious belief and views of the Nation, two represented the American Sabbath Union, and one claimed to represent the farmers of his State, as well; another spoke for the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, of the District of Columbia, which had set apart for itself the four days of the hearing as days of special prayer, that the law prohibiting Sunday opening of the Fair be not repealed, and had asked that all Christian people join with them in daily prayer to the same end; while the third informed the committee he brought with him resolutions signed by eighty citizens of Delaware, demanding that legislation to close the World’s Fair be not repealed, under the alternative of a boycott. The threat of a boycott of the Fair was sufficient to show that the resolutions came from a religious gathering, for none other would have thought of taking that ground, or has.

That which the speakers had to say was presented with much fluency and force, and in some cases with marked ability. Every moment of the time was utilized, and the management of this portion of the hearing exemplified most strikingly the facility which these organizations for securing and enforcing religious law have for mobilizing their forces, and working together in perfect mechanical accord to the same end. That the arguments of different advocates of religious legislation show great discrepancies, contradictions, and inconsistencies, when brought together and compared, is well known to all who have paid any critical attention to their writing or speaking. They suffered considerably in this hearing from the unavoidable comparison of so many conflicting views placed with such rapidity before the committee.

Upon two things, however, there was complete unanimity of conviction and expression, and those were that by decision of the Supreme Court this was a “Christian Nation,” and legislation asked by its religious representatives for the furtherance of Christianity, therefore, permissible; and that this decision with the judicial precedents, and social customs upon which it is based, made all reference to constitutional principles entirely futile, useless, and quite out of place. Over and over again the subtle flattery was laid at the feet of congressmen—combined with a backhanded blow at those who assert constitutional principles, that it would seem a reflection upon the committee and Congress that this matter should come up for discussion again at all; and that, the necessity for such a discussion involved a reflection upon Congress that it did not know what it wanted and was composed of hypocrites and weathervanes; and that, to say a word upon the unconstitutionality of the Sunday-closing proviso would be a reflection upon the committee, Congress which passed it, and the President of the United States who signed it.

It was also slyly insinuated that Congress would not care to acknowledge that it had passed an unconstitutional law, by repealing the Sunday closing clause. If this is not corruption, what is? To use the graces of practised oratory to lead the legislators of the Nation away from the Constitution, to persuade them that criticism of any action they may take is insolence, and to suggest to them, that when in legislative error, they should beware of acknowledging it by the repeal of the erroneous legislation—is this the political teaching of the Church of the United States by the mouths of its accredited representatives? Such was its teaching at this hearing.

In the criticisms of the business purpose of the World’s Fair managers in desiring an open Fair, the ministerial ideas on the financial question of the Fair seemed quite at variance. Several condemned the management of the Fair in the severest language, and without stint, as greedy of gain and forgetful of all else, and careless of all else—only to get gold,—while another argued long and in minute detail of mathematical statistics that there would be a money profit in closing the Fair on Sunday.

The early differences between the American Sabbath Union and the National Reform Association as to the propriety of the assumed disguise of a civil Sabbath, were still apparent, although the majority of the speakers threw off the cloak entirely and spoke as they would from their pulpits. Still, several claimed earnestly that all they asked was a civil Sunday, and proceeded immediately to disprove their assertion by the very language which they themselves used.

In closing, letters were presented from

Bishops Potter and Cleveland Coxe, and Cardinal Gibbons, gentlemen who, according to this, would seem to have achieved a great success in securing a position on both sides of the Exposition fence.

W. H. M.