p. 7 | Smash-Up in Politics by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Sep 14, 1882

Smash-Up in Politics.

By Editor

THE prophecy was published in a California paper some months ago that the Sunday question would go far toward breaking down party lines. And so it has come to pass. It is the over-shadowing question of the time; literally, "the bone of contention" in every community. And the end is not yet. It is destined to be the cause of more discord and evil than any question which has troubled our country. If, indeed, it were a "Christian Sabbath," as is so strongly claimed; if its friends could prove that it had its origin and sanction in the Bible, then they would no doubt be content to leave its advocacy to the pulpit, as they do all truly Christian institutions, as baptism and the Lord's supper. But it is because they understand that it has not the basis or characteristics of a Christian institution, that they throw it into politics, and demand that candidates shall uphold it or lose their votes.

But we are now to notice the effect it has had on the condition and prospects of political parties. When the strong effort was made to enforce the law in this State, its friends early announced that they would vote for no man for office who would not indorse it. As it was regarded as a settled fact that they could command votes enough to control the election, it was easy to foresee that the political parties would have to act in reference to this expressed determination. It was already forced upon the parties before any conventions had met.

The Democratic State Convention met early—in June. It took a position against the Sunday Law. Immediately, there was a cry raised against its action all over the State, and the defections from the party were so numerous that it looked as if a regular stampede from the Democratic camp must be the result. To all appearance, the Republicans could have everything their own way if they would come out squarely on the side of the Sunday Law, and that it would do so appeared to be a foregone conclusion.

The Republicans met this expectation by declaring in favor of the Sunday Law, and the enthusiasm manifested over that resolution was truly unbounded. The delegates appeared to be inspired with a confidence that they would have a mere "walk over" in the coming race.

A short time has elapsed, and a wonderful change has taken place. Instead of a defection of scattered individuals, whole bodies are turning away from the gilded platform. The temperance people, who have persistently favored the Sunday Law because it was a temperance law, are now dissatisfied because they could get no recognition of their mild request in favor of local option. The favor which they asked was small in comparison to that which they had reason to expect from the professions of those papers and speakers who had dissected and repudiated the Democratic platform. But they were ignored entirely.

The church people are dissatisfied because the platform declares in favor of "a day of rest and recreation," and plainly disavows "the right or the wish to force any class of our citizens to spend that day in any particular manner," and only looking to "the suspension of all unnecessary business upon that day." All this is exactly what the churches did not want. For, (1) They do not want Sunday used as a day of recreation. The Sunday picnics and parades, etc., etc., they wish to have suppressed, while this platform indorses them, and all other Sunday recreations. (2) They are opposed to having all spend the Sunday in a manner to suit themselves, even if they do cease from ordinary labor on that day. They regard it as a religious institution, and want a law which will compel everybody to keep it according to their ideas of its sacredness. And, (3) They cannot fix the meaning of the platform to any particular kind of business. When an effort was made to procure warrants against railroad employes, they were refused on the ground that the law did not apply to them. Suppose it shall be decided that railroading, telegraphing, and the work of livery-stables, barber shops, bakeries, markets, etc., are "necessary business," we might as well have no law at all. It was decided in an Indiana court that, to some people at least, cigars are "a necessity," and may, therefore, be sold on Sunday! But wine and brandy are equally a necessity to others, while hundreds might not only plead, but prove, that it is absolutely necessary to labor on that day to procure subsistence for their families. Is it any wonder that a meeting of ministers repudiates this platform nearly unanimously?

But of all people the "League of Freedom" ought to be the best satisfied with the action of the Sacramento Convention. We do not attach any significance to its choice of a wholesale liquor-dealer as Chairman, because the political position of Newton Booth might well entitle him to that honor. But Mr. Shaeffer, late President of the League, was a member of the Convention. He addressed the Platform Committee immediately after Col. Babcock. He urged them to ignore the temperance question; he assured them that liquor-dealers would not only work in the party if they would take no position in favor of prohibition, but promised that the saloon men would close on Sunday, and uphold the Sunday Law, if prohibition were ignored. All understood that he spoke in behalf of the liquor interest, and his associates, to whom he referred, assented to all he said and promised. And the Committee did all that he asked, and he was the only one who received such a favor. In addition to this, a candidate for Governor was selected who, as it was said in a speech in his favor in the Convention, is one of our first wine producers, and he has acted as president of the Wine Growers' Association. It must be because trafficking in liquors stamps out all the fine feelings of our nature, that the League is so ungrateful as to repudiate the platform! Mr. Shaeffer said that he appeared there in behalf of the liquor interest, but the League has taken action on the matter, and has repudiated all that he said and promised.

Who can trust to anything in politics?

How will these conflicting interests affect the vote? It is impossible to tell. And if the Republicans triumph in the election, what will be the result as to the Sunday controversy? That is equally impossible to tell. They will have kept the pledge of their platform full as well as political parties usually meet their platform pledges, if they let the present Sunday Law stand in the code untouched. It has been a dead letter thus far, and may be in the future. It is very evident that all that has been done in its favor thus far is the result of a little enthusiasm worked up under a strong pressure, which does not seem to retain its heat after the first outburst.

Thus far in regard to the present political outlook. As to the final outcome of all these things we have views well defined, but that does not come within the scope of this article.