p. 360 | What They Say About It by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Aug 10, 1882

What They Say About It.

By Editor

Now THAT the Democratic State Convention has declared against the Sunday Law, many are wondering what the Republican party will do with it. If those papers that have committed themselves on the subject, voice the sentiment of the party at large, it is not difficult to tell what will be done at the coming Republican Convention. Once those who ventured to predict that the Sunday question would be the leading issue in politics, were laughed at as credulous fanatics. But the "sure word of prophecy" is fulfilling rapidly, and the event is right at our doors. By the testimony of politicians themselves, it is already the leading question. One paper that comes to us has eleven different articles on the Sunday Law, varying from a dozen lines to a column. Not one-tenth as much space is devoted to the discussion of any other political question.

The East Oakland Vidette, under the heading "The Issue Joined," says:—

"The time has come when the Republican party must take a stand on the question of Sunday observance in California. The question does not belong in politics, and should not be made an issue in a political campaign, but the Democratic party has made it an issue in the present State contest, and the Republican party cannot, consistent with its former advocacy of all high moral questions which have come before the people, refuse to take up the gauntlet thrown down by their political opponents. . . . . The Democrats have declared against the observance of the Sabbath; the Republicans will fearlessly and gladly declare in favor of it."

The Fresno Republican, in an article entitled, "Let The Issue Be Made," speaks as follows:—

"The Democracy of California has thrown down the gauntlet; let the Republicans take it up, and join the issue with them. . . . . The Democracy will catch a few votes from the very worst element of the Republican party; but the Republicans will get five times as many in return from the very best element of the Democratic party. We accept the issue, and only hope that the Republican Convention will make it clear cut."

An Ex-Senator writes thus to the Oakland Times:—

"Now that one of the old political parties has held its Convention, and set forth or promulgated its principles, may it not be proper to consider or to foreshadow what ought to be the leading principle of the Republican party, at the coming State Convention?"

"The question is soon to be forced upon the people of the State, and the issue to be squarely met, whether we are to be left in the quiet enjoyment of a Christian Sabbath, or one day of rest from secular business, in the seven of the week, or [whether] we are to break down all the barriers of restraint, and adopt the European custom of disregarding the day of rest."

The Santa Rosa Republican says:—

"There is a feeling in certain quarters that the Republican State Convention will do well to ignore the issue forced on the party. There is also a hope in the hearts of many that the gauntlet will be taken up, and battle joined on the Sunday Law question. . . . . Left to ourselves it is, perhaps, the last dogma Republicans would have thought of for a political platform. But, since the Democracy have dragged it in, a good many voters besides Republicans want to know what we are going to do about it. Looking at the matter coolly from a stand-point that scans the future, as it overlooks the past, we think no policy, in the long run, is good policy not founded on just principles. At least we can recall none that lived long. The principle underlying the law is of higher origin than the laws of men. The statutes of California, so far, are in accord. As a principle, then, it is good. To support the law, therefore, would be policy founded on a good principle. It will command the approval of good men of all parties; so that, without doubt, the Republican State Convention may safely accept the challenge, not only on principle but through good policy."

But although these papers speak thus, and call the anti-Sunday plank in the Democratic platform, "heathenish," and "anti-Christian," let no one imagine that it is because they particularly respect the Sunday, or are pained at its desecration. They plainly say that the question is of minor importance, and one that they would be in favor of leaving out entirely, if it had not been forced upon them. Now if it is an unimportant matter, why do they make it so prominent? The answer is given by themselves. They say, "We cannot afford to evade the issue thus forced upon us." Why not? Simply because the church people, together with some temperance people, united in a so-called "Prohibition Convention," and resolved to support the Republican nominees if that party declares in favor of the Sunday Law, and to nominate and vote an independent ticket if it does not. The aforesaid Ex-Senator, speaking of this action says:—

"Now will it not be wise for the leaders of the Republican party to listen to such a proposition? for it is not only probable but quite certain that they will be defeated if they ignore the action of the prohibitionists."

This, then, is the reason for the sudden spasm of virtue that has seized the politicians. But this does not at all affect the fact that the Sunday is the prominent thing in politics. Indeed, it is the more suggestive, because it shows that at the bidding of "the church" the Republican party is doing that which it would not think of doing otherwise. Can anybody see any difference between this and a union of church and State?