VIOLATING SOUND PRINCIPLES.
SUNDAY, April 6, was a "dry Sunday," so called, in New York City. The municipal authorities had determined to close all the saloons in the city from twelve o'clock Saturday night until five o'clock Monday morning. That does not mean that there was no liquor sold in that city on that day, but simply that the recognized saloons were closed during that time. The Raines'-law "hotels" were doing a liquor business, as well as all the regular hotels. It was also hinted that many places that appeared "dry" were not as dry as they appeared, and that in many out-of-the-way places liquor was being sold; and those who must have it had doubtless laid by a sufficient quantity to tide them over the dry spell. On the whole, it is possible that there was considerable less liquor sold on that day than on previous Sundays. It is even possible that there was a little less liquor consumed on that day than on previous Sundays. But that the liquor sold on the following Monday or on the preceding Saturday was any less harmful than that which had previously been sold on Sunday is not even supposable. That the day was regarded with any more sacredness by the saloon-keepers and bartenders who were forced to observe it is not at all likely; that they improved the opportunity to attend the churches is not likely; and that those who craved the drink felt any more kindly toward the churches, through whose influence largely they were compelled to wait until Monday before seeking to quench their thirst, is highly improbable. It is good that men should not drink liquor. It is a grand work to induce men to cease drinking it. But it is a fact that being compelled to cease one day in seven but whets the burning appetite, and gives it a keener edge. By such methods the result desired by temperance workers is not attained. There were police enough in New York City to compel all recognized saloons to close on Sunday. The same policemen under the same orders could keep them closed all the rest of the week just as9well as on Sunday only. The same policemen could compel the hotels to close their drinking establishments. The only thing lacking is the order to do it backed by a law authorizing it to be done. The whole matter is in the hands of the people. If the people want the saloons closed all the week, they can have it done; if they wish them closed only on Sunday, they can have that done; but that the cause of temperance is greatly benefited by the latter accomplishment is something that has never yet been demonstrated. There is something accomplished in Sunday closing, however. The sacredness of a religious ordinance is recognized by the civil law. The worldling is compelled by the civil law to act as tho he were religious. An alliance is effected between secular and religious things—between the Church and the State, the State compelling its subjects to recognize and observe one of the dogmas of the church. All this is against the spirit of the Constitution of the United States. It is likewise against the vital and real principles of the Christian religion. Temperance must be one of the characteristics of the Christian. He must live it as well as teach it; but the effort to compel a cessation of intemperance by closing saloons on one day in seven is an effort barren of results; and when that one day is a day set apart by the church, and the closing is accomplished because of the supposed sacred character of the day, rather than because of the evil which the traffic is doing, then to the barrenness of the results is added the violation of the fundamental principles of the government and of the Christian religion as well.