SUNDAY-LAW MOVEMENT IN CALIFORNIA.
By W. N. G.
The California Sabbath (Sunday) Association held its annual meeting in San Francisco on the 14th inst. The published reports would indicate a very elaborate affair, but it was, as far as the business was concerned, the usual spectacle of a half dozen men conjuring plans for binding the consciences of their fellow-men on Sunday, while another half dozen looked on. As usual, the men who were willing to take office and really father the movement were some superannuated ministers with little or nothing else to do. True, there is a display of the names of prominent pastors as an “Executive Committee,” but the reports from year to year indicate that this is a mere formality. In urging the presidency upon the one nominated by the committee it was stated that he had nothing else to do. And it would be somewhat natural for such an individual to engage in such a work, on the principle that a certain power “always finds employment for idle hands.” The treasurer reported twenty-eight cents in the treasury. Yet this handful of men are wont to inveigh against the minority’s opposition to their work. In the midst of the business, and the exchange of compliments in the general desire to shift responsibilities upon one another, the matter of the State Christian Endeavor Convention, then in session at San Jose, was brought up. On the Christian Endeavor program was a “sacred concert” at a large suburban pavilion on Sunday. It was suggested by Dr. Briggs that, while that particular concert would of course be all right, it was a dangerous precedent. This called out a suggestion that a representative of the Sabbath Association be sent to San Jose to arouse a Sunday observance enthusiasm in the convention. Amongst other names, that of Dr. W. W. Case was mentioned as a proper delegate, and this suggestion brought out the fact that there is not a little hostility existing between the Christian Endeavors and the Epworth League, a purely Methodist institution. Dr. Case is a Christian Endeavorer, but he is also an Epworth Leaguer, and he feared that, on that account, he would not have sufficient influence for the occasion. As an instance of the sectarian prejudice that is being manifested between these young people’s societies, he cited the fact that an Epworth League brother, who was also a member of the Christian Endeavor Society, had been “peremptorily kicked out” of the Golden Gate Union of the latter organization, because he declined to wear the “C. E.” Dr. H. A. Ketchum was finally selected for the somewhat delicate mission. It was a delicate mission; for, while it was designed ostensibly to merely arouse an increased Sunday enthusiasm, the move was prompted by a kind of fear that the young people had already too much enthusiasm on Sunday. It was feared that their program was being in a measure manipulated in the interest of the street-car company, which it was stated also owned the pavilion. It is a fact (and this say we, not the Sabbath Association) that it is becoming a very delicate matter for the experienced men in the churches to know just how to hold the reins on these young people’s societies. Since the “Christian Citizenship” movement has been launched amongst them, and they have been enthused with the idea that upon them rests a great religious responsibility to do political battle for the country, and they are looked to as the coming power in the land, they evince a decided inclination to take the lead at once. When the hour arrived for that part of the program which was to have a telling influence upon the public, for which time two addresses, etc., were booked, there were twenty-five people in the hall. But there were presented some of the usual stock-in-trade pretexts for a state Sunday law, and these go out through the press to the public as the utterance of an annual convention representing the Christian sentiment of the state. The first address was by Rev. Robert Whitaker, who said that appeal for a Sunday law should be made on the ground of general good, rather than for specific religious reasons. This he deemed to be the only ground on which the workingmen could be interested. Yet his further argument showed that the suggestion was merely one of policy, the best means of securing the desired end. A Sunday law would work to the advantage of religion—“our congregations would be larger, but it would not be religious legislation.” In other words, the appeal on the ground of general good would inveigle the workingmen into supporting that which is in effect religious legislation, but which makes a pretense of being something else. The speaker showed in various ways that his plea of “general good” was only a subterfuge to catch popular support. For instance, he said that there is enough sentiment in the state to stop half the Sabbath desecration at once, if the sentiment were only crystallized; and it can be crystallized by meeting the laboring men where they are. The reasons set forth for a Sunday law must be as a stand between labor and the money-maker. When Dr. Case’s address was called for, he waived the portion which had been specially prepared for the occasion because of the limited audience, and talked at random awhile from some notes which he said were “informal and perhaps illogical.” And to talk of “rescuing the Sabbath of the Lord” on Sunday, was certainly illogical. The Sabbath which the Lord made, which he sanctified, which he commanded, which he personally observed, was not Sunday. It was concerning the seventh day that he said:— “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call9the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words; then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” Isa. 58:13, 14. The speaker said that the whole responsibility of the matter of better Sunday observance rested upon the evangelical churches, and severely criticised the ministers of San Francisco and vicinity for their conspicuous absence. He could not see why the ministry could not see eye to eye on fundamental questions. If any question ought to invoke the enthusiasm of all the ministers of San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda, it was the question of Sabbath reform. The Conference (Methodist) must stop ministers from traveling on Sunday. The Sunday newspapers must be stopped—not so much for the work that is done on them, but for the sake of the 100,000 newsboys that are being trained for hoodlumism and outlawry. He didn’t explain how the temptations of this class were any worse on Sunday than on any other day. He advised that the matter of better Sunday observance be worked up in the prayer meetings, and that every minister should be above suspicion in his own practice. They should all stop advertising their meetings in the Sunday papers. He complimented himself and one or two other ministers very highly in this respect, and then stated that there was not a church in San Francisco that had been in the habit of Sunday advertising but had had its trouble or row of some kind. They go for the crowds, and with the crowds comes their damnation. He concluded with the demand that the state be sown knee deep with literature on the subject of Sunday reform. In the evening there were further addresses to a somewhat larger audience. The resolutions adopted by the convention were to urge upon all the duty of a better observance of Sunday. To “invite the co-operation of all good citizens in securing a sabbath law in the state of California which shall restrain all our citizens from unnecessary work,” etc. To petition Congress for a law forbidding the carrying and handling of mail on Sunday, and all unnecessary labor by government employees. To ask for a state law closing saloons on Sunday. To ask the ferry companies to abolish saloons on their boats. Also, protesting against the Sunday newspapers, as “enemies to the best interests of religion and the church of Christ.”