MORE REPRESENTATIVE PETITIONING.
By W. N. Glenn
Congressman Dalzell, of Pennsylvania, has presented a petition of the Christian Endeavor Union of that state, asking for the passage of a non-partisan labor commission bill; bills to secure arbitration in railroad strikes; to present the nullification of state antigambling laws, by adding penalties for gambling by mail or express, and for a Sabbath (Sunday) law for the District of Columbia. These petitions are said to represent 207,000 persons, that being the reputed Endeavor membership of Pennsylvania. It is safe to say, however, that not a tithe of them ever saw the petition. Such is the character of this representative petition business, adopted by the National Reformers. Such is the deceptive tactics being adopted to deceive congressmen and legislators generally with the idea that overwhelming majorities of people favor the National Reform movements. What right has any person or combination of persons to petition in the name of others? There is no denying the legitimate right of petition; but the abuse of the right is manifest when men assume to petition in the names of others. The secular government was instituted for the protection of individual rights. Men may petition the government as individual citizens, for secular purposes, but no man has a right to petition in the name of another. No man has a right to ask as a Presbyterian, or as a Catholic, or as any other characteristic religionist, for legislation. Petitions coming before any secular legislative body should come from citizens, and be signed by individuals as such, and may properly represent only the signers. Religious bodies, as such, have no right to petition any secular body for legislation; although the members of that body as individuals have the right of such petition. If our Congress or Legislatures begin enacting laws on petitions because the petitioners are Methodists, or Baptists, or Christian Endeavorers, where will the matter end? An indication of where it will end is given in the petition under consideration. This petition comes from Pennsylvania, yet it asks that Sabbath observance be enforced upon the people of the District of Columbia; and its signers assume that they ought to have their request granted because they are Christian Endeavorers. Could the end of such petitioning, if generally heeded by Congress, be more plainly indicated? Let us ask these petitioners a question: Suppose the leading Catholics of the District of Columbia, representing the entire church in the District, should petition Congress to pass a law compelling all the people of Pennsylvania to attend the confessional at stated times,—what would be thought of such a move? Congress has just as much right to pass such a law, if Catholics should ask it, as they have to pass a District of Columbia Sabbath law because the Christian Endeavorers petition for it. The District of Columbia Catholics have just as much right to ask for a Pennsylvania confessional law as the Pennsylvania Endeavorers have to ask for a District of Columbia Sabbath law; and Congress is under no more obligation in the one case than in the other. In fact, the members of Congress having taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, they are under the most solemn obligation to deny the requests of all such petitions. Some will object to this parallel on the ground that a majority of professing Christians, and many others, believe in keeping Sunday; therefore all should be compelled to observe it. But the parallel case is strengthened by the fact that all professing Christians, and many others, believe it a duty to confess sin; and if Congress may enact how and when the people shall observe the Sabbath, it may with equal propriety enact how and when they shall confess their sins. And no believer in the word of God will dispute that the confession of sin is fully as essential as the keeping of the Sabbath. If Congress may impose one religious duty, it may with equal propriety impose all others. And if nominal Protestants continue to urge this Roman doctrine of enforcing religious dogma by state law in the United States, the time is not far distant when they will find measures growing upon their precedents far beyond their present anticipations. They ought to learn at least one lesson from the experiment of asking government aid to denominational schools.