Your ShelfYour Projects

A Great Temperance Convention

7%

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 27, 1910

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 87, No. 4.

Read the full edition

A Great Temperance Convention

By K. C. K.

A NOTABLE gathering of distinguished temperance workers from all parts of the country occurred in Washington, D. C., from the twelfth to the seventeenth of last month.
This meeting was held under the auspices of the International Reform Bureau, of which the Rev. Dr. W. F. Crafts is the head.
Among the prominent speakers who took part in the discussions were John G. Wooley, Ex-Senator H. W. Blair, who introduced the famous Sunday bill twenty-one years ago, Pres. Samuel Dickie, Clinton N. Howard, Rev. Dr. C. H. Mead, and others.
Other matters besides the liquor traffic were discussed; viz., race-track gambling, the white slave traffic, the opium habit, etc., all coming in for consideration as to the best methods of dealing with them.
Discussions were interesting and instructive, and Seventh-day Adventists could, in the main, feel in perfect accord with the things said and with the methods suggested.
On the last day of the conclave the question of Sunday legislation was the theme. Rev. G. L. Tufts, Pacific Coast secretary of the International Reform Bureau, spoke in part as follows:—
“This movement [Sunday legislation] is on in our country. It began in this city twenty-one years ago when a hearing was held on the Blair Sunday Rest bill. This encouraged the foes of the sabbath to continue their warfare down to the present time. And so at the New York State legislature twenty-one bills for the repealing or the weakening of the Sunday law of that State were introduced at the last session; and so seven or eight other States of our Union. And to-day there is a movement going over our country by the foes of the sabbath to destroy our Sunday laws. These foes are in various forms. They came up in our legislature in California when we had our bill introduced at the last session for a better observance of Sunday, in three forms: one was wholly within the church, the next was without the church, and the next was partly within the church and partly out of the church. The first, which was in the church, was the Seventh-day Adventists. They sent their strongest ministers to represent that church, lobbying against the bill. They got that inspiration twenty-one years ago in this city. And now they have their plant here, near by this city, from which they are sending out literature all over our country, against our Sunday laws, and trying to break them down. We found that was true in our fight in the State of California; for at the hearing before the committee having this bill in charge, in answer to a question asked those ministers and delegates of that church, whether they would oppose a law that applied simply to the closing of saloons on Sunday, and nothing else, they answered in the affirmative. And so I could give another State in that line.”
“And there was another foe wholly without the church, the liquor element. And so it seems to be rather inconsistent to see these ministers of the gospel united with the royal arch-enemy in trying to secure the rejection of that bill.”
Dr. D. H. Kress, of the Washington Sanitarium, replied to Dr. Tufts in the following words:—
“I wish to say I am in favor of prohibition. Reference was made to Seventh-day Adventists which would lead one to think they do not favor prohibition. I am a Seventh-day Adventist. Now, I think that a wrong impression may have been conveyed, not intentionally; but since we can not read eachother's motive, misunderstandings sometimes arise. Some time ago an intoxicated man entered a street-car. He fell asleep, and at the end of the line the conductor found it necessary to put the man off the car. A scuffle took place, and the conductor was thrown and killed. The question arose, Who killed the conductor? It was not the intoxicated man, nor was it the liquor seller; it was the people who licensed the saloon and granted the right to the saloon-keeper to sell the drink. It does not matter whether the drink is sold on Sunday or upon some other day of the week; the people who legalize the liquor traffic are responsible for the crimes committed by those who become intoxicated.”
“I favor total prohibition, and I am certain I voice the sentiment of every member of our church when I say that he favors total prohibition. The prisons are filled with murderers and robbers in spite of the fact that we have laws prohibiting murder. Suppose we should say we can not have laws which totally prohibit murder: let us have laws framed that will prohibit murder on Sunday, or on the Fourth of July, or after ten o'clock at night. That would weaken the law. We recognize that the sale of intoxicating liquors makes criminals. In fact, the sale of liquor itself is an unjustifiable wrong. If this is so, then we ought to deal with this traffic as we do with murder and with theft—we should strike for prohibition on every day of the week. If this is done, and this question of Sunday legislation laid aside, every Seventh-day Adventist will stand shoulder to shoulder with those who are working for the enforcement of laws prohibiting the sale of drink.
“It seems to me that it would weaken the cause of prohibition, and that it would be wrong, to suppress drink merely upon Sunday; for we would thereby be legalizing this evil on the other days. Let us ask for total prohibition and the closing of saloons on all days. In that Seventh-day Adventists can heartily cooperate. I am anxious that this shall be brought about, so that together we may strike heavy blows at this traffic.”
Dr. Crafts followed Dr. Kress, speaking in a very complimentary way of the Seventh-day Adventists. He said we stood for eleven twelfths of all the reforms his bureau was working to obtain. He said that the demand for the closing of the saloon on Sunday was not because Sunday was a religious day, but because it was a day of leisure. This argument of Mr. Crafts does not appear to be in harmony with the following statement made by him on a previous occasion: “If you take the religion out of the day, you take the rest out of it.” Again, it should be remembered that the advocates of Sunday legislation who have been instrumental in securing a day of enforced idleness on Sunday are responsible for this “leisure” that makes the Sunday saloon so objectionable. As Dr. Kress said, Seventh-day Adventists desire the saloon closed on Sunday, and all other days of the week. K. C. K.