W. H. THURSTON by W. H. Thurston

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D.C. · May 10, 1906

W. H. THURSTON

By W. H. Thurston

Ottawa

The committee having in charge the bill for better Sunday observance resumed its work the 24th inst., and the hearing was closed with the third sitting the following day. Many interests were heard in opposition to the bill—the railway, transportation, marine, coal, navigation, steamboat, express, and many other companies, numbering in all about sixty different corporations, and representing practically the whole industry of the Dominion. Strong arguments were made in opposition to the bill, especially by the railway, transportation, and electric companies. While the promoters of the bill tried to maintain that it was not the religious observance of the day which they desired to protect, the bill was referred to by different speakers as being religious, and emanating from a religious body.

At the close of the sitting of the 19th inst., Mr. Shearer, the leader of the Lord's Day Alliance, asked the privilege of replying to the arguments of the Adventists,

Jews, and some others, which was granted, and it was suggested that he reply there and then, as we were all present; but after some questions pro and con he was allowed to defer his reply until the following sitting. In the meantime I filed an application to reply to Mr. Shearer when he was through, but the hearing closed without hearing Mr. Shearer. It was clear that they did not care to have the religious side, the broad side, discussed. After the hearing, we had a brief interview with Mr. Shearer, and he said that personally he had no objections to our people's working on Sunday providing they would work in their houses, barns, or out of sight and hearing. This is a very significant statement, indeed.

Our arguments, both written and oral, were printed in full in the official documents of the House of Commons, with the other arguments presented against the bill. Our position, in brief, was that the bill was religious in its character and make-up, and that the legislation proposed was religious legislation; and this being true, it was unconstitutional and antichristian.

We are very thankful for this privilege of presenting the truth before men in authority, and it was evident that the committee was favorably impressed that we have rights, conscientious convictions, and that we should be recognized. While the minister of justice would not admit that the bill affected the religious liberty of any one, he admitted that we had a very presentable case from the material standpoint, and that he was enlightened by the presentation of our views. Another member of the committee stated that he could see that the bill, if passed, would take two days from us, and we could not expect a livelihood. He said they must let us live in the country.

We can not anticipate the future of the proposed bill, but it will in all probability be reported back to the House next week or early in May, and the House will deal with it. Some think it will be laid over until another session of Parliament, but time will tell. We feel that the Lord has directed in the presentation of the truth, and that much good will result from the efforts made at this time. We will give further reports of the movement as matters develop.