p. 8 | Note and Comment

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D.C. · Feb 25, 1904

Note and Comment

SPEAKING of the effort for Sunday closing of saloons in New York City, as The Independent says it “is better to have no law than to have a law that is wantonly and publicly and generally flouted.” So it advises that “as the law is not enforced, and apparently can not be enforced, and the people are taught to disobey law, they should have the law changed.”

The distinction between natural law and statute law does not seem to be as clear in the minds of many people as it should be. Natural law is always binding, and people should be taught to respect such law always, and at all costs. Any statute law which is in conflict with natural law is not entitled to respect. In other words, to do right and to uphold justice is the natural duty of all people, and no statute that conflicts with justice can be of binding obligation. People should be taught respect for law, therefore, by being taught respect for what is right and just, rather than by a mere change of statute to suit a popular desire. What is right? is a more fundamental question than, What is the law? And a statute which disregards the question of right is itself a promoter of lawlessness; for right is always the higher law, having its seat in the throne of the Supreme Ruler. It is the business of legislatures not to try to create right and wrong by statute, but to discover first what is right, and then to enact a statute in conformity with it.

The saloon is a natural outlaw, and has no right to exist on any day in the week, and a Sunday saloon law, demanding that the saloon be closed on Sunday, and therefore legalizing its existence on other days of the week, sets up a false standard of right, and tends to confuse minds concerning the issue which the saloon as an enemy of home life and civilization represents. It is an example of the confusion of right and wrong which always results from legal recognition of a religious day.