WORKING FOR A SUNDAY LAW.
By W. N. G.
NINE o'clock in the morning of the 21st ult. was the program hour for the second day's meeting of the district Sabbath Observance Convention at San Jose. The Enrollment Committee reported that 110 persons had given in their names as members of the convention. Of these, however, the greater part were women, with about a dozen ministers. But at the opening hour the attendance was very small, and the chairman, M. C. Briggs, D.D., seemed loth to proceed with any portion of the business. A few more were afterward added to the audience, but hardly half of the number reported as members were present on that day. It was particularly difficult to get persons to act on the Ways and Means Committee, whose duty it is to look after the affairs of the district until after the next Legislature shall meet, at which time a persistent effort is to be made to secure the enactment of a Sunday law. Rev. Bunyan Spencer was drafted, much against his will, as also a Mrs. Brown, of Santa Clara. Rev. Dr. Minton positively declined, and then came the admission that, although the convention occupied his church, he had not become a member of the convention. A resolution was introduced by Dr. Evans, requesting the City Council of San Jose to pass an ordinance forbidding the use of bands of music on Sunday upon any street within one block of a church. The resolution was called out by the fact that some of the churches had recently been disturbed by bands of music during their services. The ministers and church people of San Jose, as in some other cities, seem determined to ignore the State law already in force for the purpose of protecting public worship against disturbance. Section 302 of the Penal Code provides as follows:— "Every person who willfully disturbs or disquiets any assemblage of people met for religious worship, by noise, profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior, or by any unnecessary noise either within the place where such meeting is held, or so near as to disturb the order and solemnity of the meeting, is guilty of a misdemeanor." And such misdemeanor, according to section 19, is punishable by "imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or both." Why do not the disturbed churches avail themselves of the protection here guaranteed not only for Sunday worship, but for worship on any other day? Do they not fear that the recognition of this comprehensive State law would annul their plea for a special Sunday law? There seems to be no other excuse for such action. To some extent this explains the following resolution passed by the convention, which is apparently designed to concentrate all the protection for worship on one day, namely, Sunday:— "The Sabbath was made for man, and God has given it by moral statute. While it is necessary to man as a religious being, yet independent of this, because of the physical, mental, moral, and social benefits resulting from it, it should have a place in the Civil Code of our State, guaranteeing its privileges and benefits to every citizen. Forever opposed to any union of Church and State, denying the right of the State to enforce its religious observance simply because the Sabbath has a religious character, nevertheless we insist that the laws of our State should protect the Sabbath as a day of rest for all and a day for unmolested religious worship to those who wish to so observe it. Therefore," "Be it resolved, That we invite the co-operation of all good citizens in securing a Sabbath law in the State of California which shall protect all our citizens in their right to one rest-day in seven." Of course that one rest-day must be on Sunday. The Penal Code above quoted protects worship on any and every day; but that appears to be too sweeping, so it is quietly laid on the shelf, and a law is sought for the protection of one day. People who choose to worship on any other day are not worthy of protection. But the resolution which called out the most discussion, and indeed the only one which brooked any opposition on its merits, was that regarding Sunday newspapers. It reads as follows:— "Resolved, That it is the sense of this convention that the taking of mail from the post-office on the Sabbath, the reading or purchasing of Sunday newspapers on the Lord's day, or the publishing of church notices or other matters in such papers, are to be discouraged as violations of the fourth commandment." Dr. Calhoun said that he had not given a notice to a Sunday paper in ten years; that the Ministers' Union had often resolved not to have their church notices inserted in the Sunday papers, but in a short time afterward "some fellow" would break over, and like a flock of sheep the others would follow. Dr. R. H. McDonald said he thought we ought to make the best use possible of that which we cannot control; so long as we cannot get rid of the Sunday newspaper, let us use it for all the good purposes possible. He would, as a matter of policy, drop out that resolution from the committee's report. Rev. T. B. Stewart, of San Francisco, grew quite warm over the subject, and charged the hoodlumism of his city mainly to the account of the Sunday newspaper. He thought that a minister who did not use all his influence against it should be denounced by his brethren. This called out remonstrance from Rev. Silcox, of Oakland, who thought this was going too far. He said these papers were regularly issued, giving notice as to all other things that were going on in the city, and he thought it proper that they should also tell where the gospel could be heard. Of course he was opposed to the issuance of papers on Sunday, but as long as they were issued, they might be used to give such information. Dr. Minton seconded Mr. Silcox' point; said he did not think the publishers of Sunday papers were worse than other men; that they worked for money. He was opposed to Sunday papers, however, and did not directly give them any notices, but they copied his notices from the Saturday evening papers as news items. Even Rev. N. R. Johnston was opposed to the idea of denouncing brother ministers in regard to the matter, but before he got through he was charged with doing that same thing himself. Said Rev. Stewart, "You are worse than I am, Brother Johnston." The speaker was strong in his utterances against the Sunday paper, and the habit of going to the post-office on that day. He instanced the case of a neighbor of his, a deacon in the Congregationalist Church, who would go to the post-office after his mail on his way home from church. A Mr. Ross was very emphatically opposed to Sunday papers, and stoutly decried their deleterious influence. He had two of them coming to his house, and he seemed to be well posted as to their contents. He urged the necessity of a Sunday law, that these papers might be stopped. We have heard many complaints of the Sunday paper, but never knew that Christian people were obliged to take them if they didn't want to. In fact, one345speaker expressed the opinion that if one thousand people would stop the Sunday Mercury of that city, it would soon cease to be issued. The Committee of Ways and Means presented propositions, among which were recommendations that ministers present frequently to their congregations the moral statute, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." That prayers around family altars and in prayer-meetings be offered for better Sabbath observance and a righteous Sunday law in California. That tracts on the religious duty and civil requirements of the Sabbath be put into all homes. That the aid of the religious and secular press be invoked in behalf of this cause. That conventions be held in every county in the State, to work up sentiment. That as soon as possible an efficient field secretary be put into the field to hold public meetings and organize local associations in advocacy of a Sunday law for this State. That all churches, societies, and corporations favorable to this movement be requested to take collections of money to further the work. That a State convention in the interest of a Sunday law be held as soon as the State committee shall deem advisable. Thus are the enemies of religious liberty working in the name of liberty. While they claim to be working under the banner of the Declaration of Independence, which claims that all men are free and equal, their efforts only comprehend the liberty of a class,—those who want to keep Sunday. To compel others to do so, is to take away their liberty. But such is all government interference with religion; such is all religious legislation, of whatever character.