Sunday Closing Defeated.
By Editor
On the evening of the 17th inst. the city council of this city reversed its former action with reference to submitting to a vote of the people the proposition to close the saloons on Sunday. A resolution to so submit the question was adopted some weeks ago, and afterward, on petition of voters, another resolution was adopted submitting the proposition to close the saloons all the time. On the evening above mentioned, however, when the election resolution as a whole was up for adoption a motion to strike out the Sunday-closing clause was carried. An effort to strike out the prohibition clause was lost. Thus the council has taken a consistent stand. The question of prohibition is a civil matter, solely an economic question; the saloon is a recognized evil from a social and economic standpoint, and therefore it is a legitimate subject of legislation. The people have a right to ask for legislation on this subject. But Sunday closing is a religious question, nothing but a religious question. It is not asked because of the evil of the liquor traffic, but because of the supposed religious character of the day. This was proved at the council meeting, when a Sunday-closing champion urged that measure as against abolishing the saloon altogether. No Sunday-closing advocate ever asks for such legislation on any other one day. The same people are just as solicitous for closing all other places of business on Sunday when they think it possible. Being solely a religious question, Sunday closing is not a legitimate subject of legislation, especially in a government claiming antagonism to Church and State union. The people, however large the majority, have no right to enforce Sabbath observance, or any other religious service, upon a single individual. For all religious duty men are responsible to God and not to the people. A majority of the city council of Oakland have come out on the right side of this much-discussed question, notwithstanding the great pressure that has been brought to bear upon them by the opponents of religious liberty during their two years' term of office. They have held to the principle that it is their province to attend to the civil business of the people, and not to meddle with their religious affairs. That is true republicanism. May their successors also be men who will maintain the rights of the people.