CALIFORNIA STATE SABBATH ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE AND MASS-MEETING.
By H.
(From our own correspondent.) The conference met January 20, at 3 P.M., in the First Baptist Church, Sacramento. Judge Mayo occupied the chair, and Dr. M. C. Briggs, of San Jose, explained the plan of the State Association to be the obtaining of a law that would compel all to rest one day in seven, and to make this day the same in all parts of the State. There was a general agreement on the part of all that there was no hope of anything being gained through the Committees on Public Morals either of the Assembly or Senate. Dr. Cantine went so far as to say that he had discovered that the Committee on Public Morals in the Assembly was appointed for the express purpose of seeing that no laws were enacted that would be offensive to the gamblers, thugs, and other bad elements of San Francisco. Assemblyman Melick was present and gave advice in regard to the best method of presenting the bill in the Assembly. He stated that there was no hope of getting it in through the Committee on Public Morals. He thought it might be worked through the Committee on Judiciary. He stated that Judge Waymire was chairman of this committee, and it was made up of good Christian men, and would doubtless report favorably on a Sunday bill. The opinion prevailed among the pastors present that they could have little influence with the members of the Legislature, but it was generally agreed that it would be better to get live, earnest laymen to carry into effect the plans laid by the ministers. Mr. Melick seconded this plan and said that if they had some good earnest laymen they could have much more influence than the ministers. At this point the majority wanted to place the bill in the hands of Mr. Melick for presentation, but he objected to fathering the bill for fear his name would bring prejudice against the bill right on the start. If they would get some one else to present the bill he would take the responsibility of seeing that it was brought through and not smothered in the committee. He advised farther that they get their laymen to work at once, personally, with the members, to get them pledged to the issue. The only hope of getting it passed was to get it in soon and rush it through. A Committee on Resolutions was appointed and the meeting adjourned. There were about thirty men and women present. In the evening there were between three hundred and fifty and four hundred present. The audience would average at least five women to one man. When the meeting had been formally opened, the Committee on Resolutions reported as follows:— “Resolved by the California State Sabbath Association in convention assembled, in Sacramento City, Jan. 20, 1897. That we respectfully request the California Legislature now assembled to reenact the Sunday law repealed in 1883 and known as sections 299, 300, 301 of the Penal Code of California, with the proviso that section 301 shall be amended so that the provisions of the section shall apply to persons keeping open barber shops, bath-houses and hair-dressing saloons after 12 o'clock noon on Sunday.”
Dr. Ketchum, of Berkeley, was called and read a long and somewhat prosy paper on the “Relation of True Patriotism to Religion.” He endeavored to show that a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” could not exist without a Sunday law. He said that man demanded one day in seven to rest and God commanded it. Man must have one day in which he will remember that God reigns in the United States. While this is a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” there is a higher power than the people. “True patriotism demands the observance of one day in seven,” and before the doctor finished he said no man could be a true patriot and not observe the fourth commandment. It could be demonstrated that if a man broke the fourth he transgressed at least five of the remaining nine. The law of God formed one complete and perfect arch, of which the fourth was the keystone. They must all stand or fall together. The Legislature has no right to tell a man what he shall do on the Sabbath, but it has a perfect right to tell him what he shall not do. He stated that the safety of the people rested in their obedience to supreme law. All these principles were set forth in his paper and much more. He closed with a short eulogy on beautiful California and a bitter lamentation that she was cursed and blighted by sabbath desecration. Mr. Ketchum was followed by Dr. Cantine. After in a humorous way censuring Dr. K. for not speaking to the resolution, he stated that he had been trying to think ever since he came to Sacramento what he came for. He did not know unless it was because he lived neighbor to Dr. Briggs and he told him he had to come. He pleased his hearers with an incidental reference to the “Expectoration Ordinance” and a pleasant but rather sarcastic recital of his experiences while visiting the Legislature. With reference to the resolution he said he was in favor of it. He thought it would be a hard matter to work the present Legislature. He did not advise his audience to follow the two ways that these official men can be worked, that is, he did not say that they should use either way in obtaining the passage of this bill, but said that there were two ways in which these lawmakers could be worked, and one was to come up behind the man you want to use and slip a little boodle into his hand; another way was to make him realize that it was best for his future good. The plea all the way was made in behalf of the laboring man, but the laboring men of Sacramento were conspicuous by their absence, altho the meeting had been thoroughly advertised in the papers and by means of handbills. Dr. Cantine is afraid that the laboring men will object to it, because they are not educated to the great value of this rest. They are not willing to take six days' wages for six days' work when they can get seven days' wages for seven days' work. He closed his remarks by calling for a rising vote. There were a few who did not vote, but almost the entire congregation voted for the resolution, only three voting against it. There was a general interest manifest, but no particular enthusiasm. The meeting adjourned after taking a collection to defray the expenses of the visiting clergymen. A special effort was put forth all the evening to give the people to understand that it was purely a civil law that the association is laboring for, simply the prohibitory feature of the fourth commandment. Dr. Cantine said it was a question in his mind whether the Lord had any reference whatever to the religious nature of the Sabbath in the law. Still the speakers all plead for it on a religious basis. H.