IS IT TEMPERANCE OR SUNDAY?
By W.
THE Independent, in its notice of the recent meeting of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, at Nashville, Tenn., makes the following comment on the resolution which was passed in favor of Sunday liquor laws:— "It is our opinion that the great fight against liquor will be made more successfully on a much broader platform than that of a Sunday law. It is possible to make so much of the Sunday feature of the law as to injure the cause, and of this there is some danger." THE Independent is correct; if the fight against the liquor traffic is ever to be successful, it will have to be made on a basis much broader than that of a Sunday law. For although a Sunday liquor law might be secured, the liquor traffic would still be entrenched as strongly as ever, yes, even more strongly than ever. Perhaps this may not be apparent to all, for many imagine that to oppose the so-called Sunday liquor laws is to array one's self on the side of the saloons, and against temperance. This can easily be shown to be an error. In the first place, the passage of a Sunday prohibitory liquor law gives the liquor traffic a legal status on other days. It is true that it is not expressly declared that liquor selling is right on other days than Sunday; but the natural inference from a law declaring it to be wrong to sell liquor on Sundays is that it is all right to sell it on other days. The mother says to her boy, "Johnnie, you must not play with your ball to-day; it is Sunday." The only idea Johnnie would get would be that it is wrong to play ball on Sunday; he certainly would never get the idea that it is not right to play ball at other times; and the mother would not expect him to. If the boy were doing anything that is wrong in itself, smoking, for instance, she would use different language. She would say, "You must not do that, my son;" and this she would say on Monday or Wednesday just the same as on Sunday. If she should say, "You must not smoke to-day; it is Sunday," the boy would conclude at once that all the wrong consisted in doing the act on Sunday, but that his mother would not object to his smoking on any other day. Even so to discriminate, and say that liquor shall not be sold on Sunday, is to say in effect that liquor-selling is all right in itself on any other day than Sunday. This idea is strengthened by the fact that those who oppose the "Sunday saloon" also oppose the Sunday newspaper, the Sunday railroad train, Sunday mails, etc., things which are perfectly legitimate in themselves. By classing the "Sunday saloon" with these other things, the professed temperance people lift it to the same level. But it is argued by many that the Sunday prohibitory liquor law is a move in the right direction, and that it is best to take what they can get, hoping for more by and by. They say they expect to get prohibition sometime, but they cannot get it all at once, and so they will take prohibition on one day. It is strange that the fallacy of this plea cannot be seen by everybody at a single glance. It is right here that we find the plainest kind of evidence that the Sunday liquor law is not a move in behalf of temperance, but is only a movement for the protection of Sunday. Suppose for a moment that the movers in this affair were all true temperance men,—men who believe that the liquor traffic ought to be prohibited because it is an evil, and only an evil, to society,—does anyone suppose that they would be content with closing the saloons on Sunday only? No; when once they had massed their strength sufficiently to close the saloons on one day in the week they would close them every day. If they want total prohibition, there is no reason on earth why they shouldn't get what they want, if they have the power to secure prohibition one day in the week. With their hands once on the monster's throat they would not relax their grasp until it was choked to death. It matters not that many of those who strenuously favor a Sunday liquor law are honest in their intentions, and are really actuated by temperance principles, the fact remains that there are not enough of such ones to carry the thing, for if there were they would have absolute prohibition. Those who look no further than the protection of Sunday are largely in the majority. We say again that the securing of a Sunday prohibitory law is not a move in the direction of total prohibition, but rather against it; for the fact that a lot of professed temperance men have the power in their hands to prohibit the liquor traffic, and stop short with prohibiting it one day in the week, will give that traffic a prestige that it has never before had. We conclude, therefore, that the whole thing centers around Sunday, and is prompted, with few exceptions, by no other motive than to protect that day from desecration. If any feel inclined to dispute the proposition still further, and claim that the only desire is to protect the homes of the people—that Sunday is a general holiday, and if the saloons are allowed to keep open, the laboring men and the youth, being idle, will be enticed into them more than at any other time, we would call attention to the fact that the working men are at liberty from about 5 o'clock Saturday afternoon, and that from then till midnight they have seven hours' holiday, during which time the saloons are in full blast, and still there is no attempt on foot to abolish the Saturday-night saloon. There is ample opportunity for the laborers to spend all their money in drink before Sunday morning, and too often this is done. If this is a "home-protection movement," then let it cover all the time when homes are in danger. More than this, the youth are usually at leisure the whole of Saturday, yet the "temperance" zeal reaches no further than the suppressing the Sunday saloon. The more arguments men bring to bear to support the Sunday prohibitory law, the more is its real nature disclosed. We repeat, the movement is against temperance, rather than in its favor, and wholly in the interest of the Sunday. The following from the Christian Statesman, of December, 1887, will bear out this assertion. It occurs in the report of a National Reform meeting in Philadelphia:— "The Rev. Dr. Barr showed how a consistent national Christianity would throw open to religious influence large classes of men and women who are now utterly inaccessible. For example, there are from six to ten thousand saloon-keepers in this city, who, from the very nature of their business, cannot be reached with the gospel. A Christian Government would abolish their business, and leave them free to be reached like other men." This, of course, looks toward entire suppression, but the principle is the same. In a meeting in the interest of a Sunday law, held in Oakland last winter, Rev. Dr. Briggs complained that the churches were charged with the duty of instructing the people in morals, and then, on account of the absence of any Sunday law, the people were free to wander into all places of amusement, so that the churches could not get at them. And whenever any "Sunday temperance" movement is sifted to the bottom, this will be found to be the ultimate object. THE Independent is right; if the professed temperance people of the country want to make any real headway against liquor, they will have to build a much broader platform than Sunday laws; for when their Sunday laws shall have been passed, liquor will be here still, and more strongly entrenched than ever.