Some Strong Statements and Pertinent Questions
By Editor
THE writer listened to Dr. Grannis, secretary of the Lord's Day Alliance of America, and Dr. G. L. Tufts, the State secretary of the same organization in California, at the First Presbyterian Church, in San Jose, the evening of February 14. Dr. Grannis stated at the outset that the work that he represented he felt was the greatest before the church to-day, without exception. The greed for gain, and lust for pleasure, and kindred things, were taking away what little of the Lord's day remained. Man must worship, and therefore must have a day of worship. Spiritual worship depended on physical rest. He then told of his work of securing closed post-offices and Sundays off for the mail clerks and delivery clerks; stated repeatedly that never had such a work as that been wrought in the world. It was simply marvelous; how contrary to the expressed convictions of people of all classes and ranks, the post-offices have been closed Sundays in every city in the United States of over 5,000, so far as he knew, and in most of the small towns. He also told us of his experience in Pittsburg in relieving iron workers—"slaves," he termed them, as veritably so as ever Africans were enslaved in this country, working twelve hours a day 365 days in the year. All this was accomplished by solicitation and earnest persuasion and influence of men of strength in the various cities and towns. He declared that the revival needed to-day was a plain, practical teaching of the Ten Commandments, that men should square themselves with God's law of the Sabbath. Yet, notwithstanding all this that had been wrought through persuasion, Dr. Grannis demands a Sunday law, and asks his hearers to write to their representatives in Congress in behalf of the Mann bill now before the House closing all post-offices in the United States on Sunday. He also told of his effort to secure a six-day law in New York State, without any regard to Sunday, or Monday, or any other day in the week, but told how he was bitterly and strongly opposed by the railway interests. These large railway companies centering in that State declared to the legislature that it would be revolutionary, and he told them, "Better revolution than dynamite; it is a good deal less expensive." He declared that the corporations are inviting the very conditions manifest in the dynamiting revolutions. He declared that Dr. Tufts was able to lead this commonwealth to a good Sunday law. Some would oppose this through greed for gain; some would oppose it for the sake of their creed. He would feel that to do the latter, he ought to hate himself, and would hate himself for holding to a dogma which would trample on the rights of his fellows. Now some of these statements are excellent. We will refer now to some of the points made, and to others later on. With Dr. Grannis, we think that one of the most important things before the people of this country, and of the world, is the Sabbath question. In it the very future of the church and of the nations is at stake. But as to whether we shall decide by man's law or God's law, by man's way of observing the Sabbath or God's way, is a question that rests with each individual soul. It is not man's law which we will meet in the final judgment, but God's law. We would like to ask some pertinent questions, however, on the matter presented by our Sunday law advocates: 1. If a Sunday law will secure to men the right to rest, as Dr. Grannis and Dr. Tufts claim, why did not Pennsylvania's stringent Sunday law secure relief for the thousands of "slaves" in the iron industries? 2. Why did not Dr. Grannis appeal to this law, instead of resorting to moral suasion and personal influence, in securing relief for the toilers? We remark, by the way, that Pennsylvania has one of the strongest Sunday laws in the United States, and one of the oldest, and that Pennsylvania is the headquarters of the National Reform Association, and Pittsburg is the headquarters in that State of that association. 3. And if a Sunday law did not secure to men the right to rest in Pennsylvania, what hope is there that it would do just the opposite in California? 4. If a six-day work and twenty-four-hour rest law, which Dr. Grannis contended for in New York, is or would be sufficient to protect men in their right to rest, why is not a similar law, now on the statute-books of California, sufficient? 5. But why another law in New York, when there is already a strict Sunday law on the statute-books of that State? 6. How many subsequent enactments does it take to make the first effective? This, perhaps, is enough for this time. We have other questions to bring before our readers in connection with this great issue.