FROM all over the field comes news of the constant agitation in one form or another for more rigid Sunday laws or their stricter observance.
Canada's Sunday law is a good example of the inequalities of such legislation. What is "crime" in Ontario is not crime in Quebec. Quebec can have its sports, and even theaters on Sunday, but in Ontario they are prohibited. On one side of the provincial line a man may be a criminal, on the other side a good citizen. Verily, "the legs of the lame are not equal." No exemption is given to those who observe another day.
The recent Presbyterian Assembly at Columbus, Ohio, discussed the subject for a whole half day, and recommended giving their custom to those who closed their shops on Sunday—a form of boycott.
Massachusetts has also modified her Sunday law. One can fish in salt-water, not in fresh. What is a crime on land is legitimate at sea.
St. Louis has closed its dram-shops tight on Sundays; but Wellston just outside does a thriving business, while others cross to Illinois. Many lay in a supply the day before. Why not close up seven days?
In Portland and other cities in Oregon, the Sunday question is still in agitation, mostly as a saloon measure. Sunday-closing is not a temperance measure. It is almost wholly in favor of religion, not temperance. It is the thin end of the wedge to further religious legislation. The same power which could close saloons one day could close seven days, but that is not what is wanted nor asked. It is for Sunday that recognition is demanded.
All these religious combinations to effect a political purpose are, in the words of Congress in 1829, "always dangerous." Even so entered Church and State in the fourth century of the Christian era. Even so it is entering now, and blind indeed is he to religio-political conditions who can not see it.