HOW DO THE METHODS COMPARE?
By M. C. W.
COMPLAINT has been made by friends of the Sunday-law petitions that those who circulated the petition against all Sunday laws, have obtained signatures by misrepresentations, or in other words, have beguiled the unwary. That the individuals signed it is not denied, but it is claimed that they were unduly influenced; they were told that the petition was all right or that it was what it was not, and so induced individuals to sign it. That there have been such instances as this may be true as claimed, but all who obtained even one signature on a false representation of the object of the petition, did so contrary to the instructions of those at the head of the work. But there is not one single individual who signed the petition against Sunday laws and legislation tending to union of Church and State, but what had the right and privilege of knowing just what the petition was and what was its object before he attached to it his name. He alone is responsible for signing the petition. We do not by this excuse wrong methods of obtaining signatures. Wrong is not right nor ever will be. God forbid that evil should be done that good may follow. But this is true, even though wrong methods were used, the individual had the right and privilege of knowing what he was signing. The wording of the petition was in no way obscure or ambiguous. But admitting that wrong methods were used in circulating the counter-petitions to Sunday laws, contrary to instructions, which is the worst method, that, or to write the names of men, women, and children, or their equivalent, and count them all as favoring the Sunday-rest-law petition, when many of them did not know that the petition was being circulated or what it was, and others were opposed to it. In the anti-Sunday-law petition all whose names appear had both the right and privilege, at the worst, of knowing what they were giving their influence for; in the Sunday-law petitions they had the right but were not granted the privilege. A few church-members voted for a whole church, oftentimes when members of the church were opposed to the Sunday law. Representative bodies as regards denominational work indorsed these petitions for thousands whom they did not represent on this question any more than on the tariff question. Ministers in these various denominations have openly opposed the Sunday-law petitions, and thousands of intelligent members have, knowing what they were doing, signed the opposing petition. Many times minorities indorsed the Sunday-law petition for majorities, the vote being put at some evening prayer-meeting when but few were present. We might continue this much further, but this is sufficient for a comparison of the two methods of obtaining petitions to the respective sides of Sunday legislation. Further investigation will show more favorably for the anti-Sunday-law petition. Which is the better way, to grant American citizens who have the right, the privilege of knowing to what they are giving their influence, or to not even permit the right or privilege of knowing? Which is the more American? Which is the more Christian? How do the methods compare? After all, are not the friends of the Sunday law magnifying before the public very small matters, at the most, in order to hide their own abnormal and unfair methods? M. C. W.