Political State Conventions.
The Democratic State Convention was held at San Jose, in June last. In its “platform” was a resolution which, though it did not name the present Sunday Law, was understood to favor its repeal. This, however, was not the first agitation of the subject in this State. An effort had been made to enforce the law strictly, over one thousand warrants having been issued in San Francisco. A society—“Home Protection”—was organized for the express purpose of enforcing it; and a counter society was organized, entitled the “League of Freedom,” to resist its enforcement. The latter society was understood to act in behalf of the liquor interest. The policy of this society was to defend its members in the Courts, and pay their fines if convicted, and thus continue their Sunday traffic. The excitement ran high, and the “Home Protectionists” announced their intention to vote for those candidates only who would pledge themselves to sustain the law, and to nominate a separate ticket in case the two parties refused to indorse it in their Conventions. It was well understood that the opposing party would adopt similar measures. Thus it was fairly forced into the political field before either Convention was held. In the meantime the Supreme Court, four to three, decided that the law was Constitutional. The Republican Convention assembled at Sacramento August 30. A strong pressure had been brought to bear on the party, many papers speaking as if their success depended entirely on their indorsing that Law. Many delegates were instructed in its favor. It was evident that it was to be the most prominent and exciting issue of the campaign. As the Republican party are the dominant party in the State, and the churches declared their intention to vote for the candidates who would stand on the Sunday platform, it appeared to us that, probably, the Republicans would take their stand in favor of Sunday, and succeed in the election. We therefore considered it our duty to make an effort to secure in their platform a recommendation to have us exempted from the penalties of the Sunday Law. Our reason for this is given on the first page of this paper. We were courteously treated by the delegates from Oakland, and by them assisted to obtain a hearing before the Committee on Resolutions, to whom all such matters were referred by the Convention. The Chairman of that Committee kindly offered to call us when that question came up. As soon as the Committee were called to order they were addressed by Colonel Babcock, in behalf of the Prohibitionists. He asked for legislation to make effectual that part of the Constitution which sanctions “local option.” He did not consider it best to ask for more than that. He was followed by Mr. Shaffer, late President of the “League of Freedom,” who represented the “whisky interest.” He was a delegate in the Convention. He asked the Committee to ignore prohibition; to leave that subject out of the platform. If they would do so, he promised that the liquor men would support the Sunday Law. He also recommended heavier penalties for violating the Sunday Law, so as to make it effectual, and secure its enforcement. The Chairman, Judge Latimer of San Francisco, then introduced us. Knowing the subject would come before the Convention, but not knowing in what manner, or whether we would be permitted to appear in person, we had prepared an Address which we proceeded to read. However, as we had been requested to be brief, as the Committee had a great deal of work before them, we read the first part, explained those paragraphs which enforced our positions on the Bible, and read the concluding paragraphs. We left a copy of the Address with the Chairman, and retired. This was all that we could do—all that we expected to do, in attending the Convention. We remained over the next day, August 31, to hear the platform read, and to listen to the discussion of its several sections. The platform was long, embracing eighteen resolutions. Only two of them elicited any discussion to speak of. One on the controversy between the miners and the farmers of the river counties, after some debate, was struck out. That concerning the railroad—the “Anti-monopoly plank” as it was called—excited a very hot controversy, but was retained as reported. Over none of the others was much feeling manifested, except the fifth—the “Sunday-Law plank.” That all readers may know what was our request as presented before the Committee, we here reproduce it, in the exact form in which it was given to the Chairman and others at the Convention. We have not seen or even heard of a single individual who denies that our request is reasonable; and we have heard of gentlemen of unquestioned legal ability, on both sides of the issue, declaring that our position on the Codes is correct. We invite all classes, politicians, Christians, and “liberals,” to read it with care, and then judge—not according to the will of “the majority,” which can determine nothing in morals and religion, but—according to the golden rule, with an earnest desire to do by others as you would have them do by you, were you in the minority and asking for that which were your moral right.