p. 21 | International Congress on Sunday Rest

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Oct 10, 1907

International Congress on Sunday Rest

By K. C. Russell

According to announcement, the Congress on Sunday Rest convened in the Press Building on the Exposition grounds at Jamestown, Va., September 25 and 26.

The object of this congress is voiced by the executive committee of the “International Federation of Sunday Rest Associations of America,” in the announcement of the meeting, in part, as follows:—

“It is fitting that in the commemoration of the settlement of America we should emphasize the Lord’s day as a prominent factor in our civilization. Our forefathers brought with them across the sea this day of rest, and planted their altar fires on this Western continent, and occupied this land in the name of their God and Saviour.”

“We therefore call upon the Christian people of the land to assemble at that historic spot upon the above dates and consider the great things which the God of heaven has done for us because of our being a Sabbath-keeping nation.”

Besides those who were on the program as speakers, the attendance was small. It should be remembered, however, that the strength of this Sunday-rest movement can not be determined by the number of those in attendance at these gatherings, where a few of the champions of the organization meet to consider plans to do more effective work in arousing public sentiment in the interests of Sunday legislation.

It is to the allies of this movement that its promoters are looking for its support and strength. One speaker said on this point, “There are multitudes of allies seen and unseen.”

One of the strong allies that this congress was rejoicing over at this time, was the American Federation of Labor. The chairman read before the delegates, with great satisfaction, the following letter from Samuel Gompers, the president of the American Federation of Labor:—

“WASHINGTON, D. C., Sept. 14, 1907. “Dr. T. T. Mutchler, “*President International Federation Sunday Rest Assn., America,* “1008 Walnut St., Philadelphia, Pa. “DEAR SIR: Your favor received today and contents noted. I regret very much that circumstances are such as to make it impossible for me to accept your invitation to deliver an address before your association at its meeting in Norfolk, September 25, 26, but as I previously stated to you, it is absolutely beyond my power to be present. “May I take the opportunity, however, of conveying to you my hearty commendation of the principles and purposes of the association which you represent? Not only am I personally in hearty accord with any movement which has for its object the preservation of one day’s rest in seven, but the American Federation of Labor has emphatically declared

itself in favor of the Sunday rest day, and it has done as much, if not more, than any other organized body of men and women to enforce the observance of the Sunday rest day. “Again expressing my regret that circumstances prevent my attending the meeting of your association, with every wish for your success, I have the honor to remain, “Very respectfully yours, (Signed) “SAMUEL GOMPERS, “President, A. F. of L.”

Not only has Mr. Gompers championed the cause of Sunday rest by civil enactment, but Mr. John Mitchell, the president of the American Federation of Miners, has also committed himself to the question of Sunday legislation in a letter written to Mary Ogden White, Field Secretary of the New York Branch of the Woman’s National Sabbath Alliance.

The danger which underlies the action of the labor union is most clearly outlined by the New York Independent, of Oct. 1, 1903, as follows:—

“No one can watch the recent development of trade-unionism with all its unquestioned value and importance, and not be impressed by the rapidity with which it is tending to become a dogmatic religion, surcharged with bigotry, fanaticism, and superstition. The unions have erected Sunday into a sabbath of the faithful. The trades-unions embrace possibly two and a half million members. If they are all to become dogmatic religionists, the days of persecution ‘for the faithful’ are not over.”

The editor of the Independent only saw the dangers from the labor organization alone; but add to this organization the great Inter-Church Federation movement, The Federated Catholic societies, and a number of other influential organizations which are seeking for the very same thing, and we see at once the dangerous power back of the movement. What will be the outcome? The answer, to the student of Bible prophecy, is found in Revelation 13, which plainly teaches that only those who have the “mark of the beast” in their right hand or forehead can buy or sell.

The chief arguments made by the speaker were intended to show the great blessings which accrue to the poor laboring men by being relieved from Sunday toil, and to set forth all who oppose Sunday legislation as the enemies of the working man.

People should not be deceived by these arguments, for the facts are that the chief concern of the leaders in this movement is not the securing of Sunday rest for the laboring man, but rather the religious observance of Sunday.

This was clearly evident from an earnest discussion on the part of Rev. Frederick J. Stantley, D. D., of New York, and Rev. M. D. Kneeland, D. D., of Boston, Mass., who argued that they should work for the day of rest under the title of Lord’s day instead of Sunday, etc.

The chairman, Rev. T. T. Mutchler, D. D., president of the International Federation of Sunday Rest, spoke quite at length regarding the victory that the Lord’s Day Alliance achieved in Canada last winter in securing a Lord’s Day act. They claimed that one of the results of this act was that seventy-five thousand men have been released from the terrible burden of Sunday toil.

This argument used against those who are opposed to Sunday legislation is merely “a man of straw;” for the real truth of the matter is that those who are opposing Sunday enforcement upon right grounds are much more the friends of the laboring men than those who are seeking to bring them under the eternal bondage of Sunday laws. Seventh-day Adventists are as much opposed to the oppression of the laboring man by the greed and graft of soulless trusts, monopolies, and unprincipled employers as are any people; but they do not believe that such an emancipation rests upon the enforcement of a religious institution.

Sunday newspapers, Sunday concerts, etc., received their share of attention by the delegates, because they interfered with the attendance at church services.

Alexander Jackson, D. D., of Cleveland, Ohio, attributed the terrible increase of insanity and railroad accidents in the strenuous times in which we live, chiefly to the disregard of Sunday as a day of rest.

George K. Morris, D. D., of Cleveland, Ohio, attempted to answer the objection which is raised by the opponents of Sunday legislation,—“You can not make men moral by civil law,”—by saying that it is just as sensible to declare, “You can not make men physically well by law,” as to say, “You can not make men moral by law.” He argued that it is possible to prevent disease by legislating against impure water and food, etc., which cause disease; so, he said, it is possible to legislate against the germ of evil, meaning chiefly that of Sunday desecration. He then declared, “You can make men moral by law.”

It was plainly evident from the arguments presented that the doctor failed to discriminate between the legitimate sphere of civil government and that of the church.

The doctor attempted to prove that the minority and not the majority rule. He cited as proof the argument that it is often the case that one man can so arouse public sentiment that great movements and changes are brought about in the state or nation. It may be granted that single individuals, or the minority, create public sentiment in behalf of some movement that is effective, but it can become crystallized into law only through the act of the majority, unless, perchance, a measure should be unjustly forced through Congress by evil and designing men. So it is the majority, and not the minority, who rule.

Many other arguments might be presented, but suffice it to say that they were substantially the old arguments so often put forth by these zealous, but misguided champions of religious legislation.

It may be of interest to the reader to know something of the work that the congress outlined for the future. They propose to resume their efforts in seeking to secure a Sunday law for the District of Columbia; to endeavor to prohibit the landing of immigrants on Ellis Island on Sunday; to exert their influence against Sunday ball games in the United States army; and to secure the passage of a bill for the Sunday closing of the exposition to be held in Seattle, Wash., in 1909. They reported that Secretary-of-War Taft had been written to concerning Sunday ball games in the army, but his reply was very unsatisfactory. He considered their argument untenable. It will be interesting to watch the results of their efforts in pressing their ideas of the proper Sunday deportment of soldiers in the United States army.

The hostility of the Sunday-law advocates toward those who were opposed to their measures was very apparent. Many uncomplimentary terms were employed by the speakers in making reference to the positions held by those who, perchance, did not favor their principles and program.

It is a great satisfaction to know that one is connected with a cause that can not be affected by the enemies of truth; for, says the inspired apostle, “We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.”

K. C. RUSSELL.