American Sentinel, Vol. 8, No. 12
The powers of evil, heretofore in the world's history, have used the grosser forPage 1
The powers of evil, heretofore in the world's history, have used the grosser forms of force and violence, but now the subtlest deceptions conceivable by the mind of the master of all deceivableness, have been developed, and a capacity for a higher intensity of action has been gained. The results of this are already seen and will continue to be manifested to a greater and still to a greater degree. The seed which was sown by the wicked one long ago has grown under his fostering care so luxuriantly, and in such perfect semblance to the wheat itself, that many can not distinguish the tares from the good grain. This is part of the plan of the great deceiver, that in this age the good ground should be so occupied by the tares, that in their rank growth they might overtop the wheat and seem the only and the rightful crop. As a result of this satanic policy, ecclesiasticism has arisen and the nominal church become subject to its sway. This false church then, while professedly spiritual in character, purpose, and intent, has become a human organization for the exploitation of worldly pride and vainglory and the attainment of temporal sovereignty. Ecclesiasticism, when in its infancy and weakness, in this country, was not only willing but glad to receive the support of the civil Government and depend upon it. As this established church has grown in power—and its tenets have become the accepted national religion, recognized as such by Government-appointed chaplains in camps; by lawyers, judges, and juries, in courts; by legislators, representatives, and senators, in legislative halls,—it still takes its dole from the national and State treasuries in Indian school appropriations and exemption from taxation. This shows the continuity of its existence, proves it to be the same ecclesiasticism which began with so full a dependence upon the State. It proves to a certainty, moreover, that it is an ecclesiasticism and not pure religion intact and free from the corruption of the world. FROM the desire for liberty to its possession is an upward step, but this is the pinnacle; there is but one step from the possession of liberty to the desire for power, this is a downward step. Through ambition the angels fell; by it the covering cherub lost his high estate; how then could feeble humanity, whatever its Christian profession, expect to gain by that through which heavenly power was lost? When once the unholy lust for power has entered into the heart of the church the satanic poison has begun its work and still that is a fallen church, no less than is Lucifer a fallen angel. The fallen angel and the fallen church will be kindred spirits, and they will work the same works. Now, however, having gained numbers, wealth, popularity, it is no longer content to remain dependent but by right of its acknowledged spiritual authority must claim temporal power. That the attempt to enforce this claim should be made under existing conditions is natural, logical, historical, and so, inevitable,90except the tide of time and the nature of man should be reversed, and all mankind come, like Nicodemus, to the feet of the Lord to be taught of him, and be born again of the Spirit into righteousness. Ecclesiasticism has always preached and practised despotism. By that sign it may be known that it has not preached the gospel or practised its precepts. The gospel affirms civil liberty; ecclesiasticism denies it. The gospel is the deadliest foe of despotism; ecclesiasticism in its infancy allies itself with despotism, in maturity usurps despotic power. Civil and religious tyranny is the product of ecclesiasticism. Civil and religious freedom is the product of the gospel. The record of the first religious Congress of the United States, just adjourned at Washington, and the inaugural of a national religion to which that record is witness, signalizes the revolution which has taken place, and gives notice to the world that in the United States the foe of the gospel, which has long been entrenched within the chancel of the Church, has now usurped the civil power.
W. H. M. Civil liberty is a product of the gospel. To demand complete freedom for himself is natural to every man; but to deny to all others the same liberty which he so earnestly desires for himself is just as natural. To the unregenerate man liberty means freedom from authoritative control coupled with the possession of despotic power over all other men. FREEDOM to enslave, liberty to exercise the right of might, the gospel of force, this only can the natural man understand, the possession of this only satisfies him. What freedom really is—actual liberty—is alone comprehended by the spiritual man. Before the understanding of this paradox of freedom through subjection can enter the mind of man, he must first have talked with God, as did Nicodemus; and, being taught of the Lord, have learned the mystery of regeneration. IF there have been those who unreservedly espoused the cause of civil liberty and human rights, pure and simple, while seemingly antagonizing Christianity, by denying its power and authority as exemplified in the minds, hearts and lives, of their contemporaries, it was because they unconsciously followed in the steps of Christ and but needed some one, like another Paul to the Athenians, to preach to them the God whom they ignorantly worshiped. Who will say that the Athenian who knelt at the altar of the unknown god was not nearer to the kingdom of God than the Pharisee, the dust of whose city Paul had shaken from his feet? THE day is past when the stern and hardy pagan may think to stay the progress of the gospel by hurling the gauntlet of his defiance in its path—he could never bring it to single combat at all, for those who carried the Word of the Lord of Hosts, though alone, were supported by the hosts of those who wait upon their Lord to do his bidding. Their armed hordes have disappeared like the frost before the morning sun; and the pagan sword and the paynim spear have been replaced by the pen of the subtle writer; while the voices of the captains of thousands now ring from the public platform, and the pulpit, marshalling the forces of evil to the final conflict. As Lucifer sought supreme authority, eternal in the heavens, so when the spirit of worldly ambition has entered the Church it seeks temporal authority supreme on earth. This is but the natural course for human weakness to take, when it has forgotten to subject itself in child-like humility to divine leading. When the time has come that the clergy can arrogate to itself the possession of the trained intellectuality of the world sanctified by a superior spirituality in its own conceit, then is the time that it will set up its claim to rule the world, as Satan, drunk with a consciousness of his own beauty and supernal intelligence, coveted divine supremacy in the heavens. These two, then, having purposes which complement each other and tend to the same end, become natural allies, and the human power and intelligence becomes the dupe and the tool of the supernatural subtlety to work its purposes on the earth. Civil Grounds of Religious Intolerance.
By C. P. B.
In every age and in every country religious intolerance has been defended to a greater or less extent on the ground of public policy. Dissenters have ever been stigmatized as enemies of the State, subverters of social order, and disturbers of the public peace. Ahab’s wicked accusation, contained in the question to Elijah: “Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” has been repeated in various forms in every country and in every age from that time until the present. When Daniel was accused to the king because he prayed three times a day contrary to the royal mandate, the accusation was in these words: “Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed.” His violation of the king’s decree was held to be subversive of social order, and his example to be pernicious in the extreme. The Son of God was accused “as one that perverteth the people” (Luke 23: 14), and the prevailing argument with Pilate for his condemnation was, “If thou let this man go, thou art not Cæsar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Cæsar.” Religious bigotry simply invoked against Christ the penalties of the civil law; he suffered, not as an enemy of religion, but as an enemy of the State. The apostles were also accused of being disturbers of the peace. At Thessalonica the cry was, “These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; whom Jason hath received; and these all do contrary to the decrees of Cæsar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.” And at Ephesus, the silversmiths raised a tumult because their craft was endangered by the preaching of the apostles. Nor were their fears groundless. The danger which they saw threatening their business really existed; so close was the relation between the prevailing faith and the social and commercial customs of the people. Thus they plausibly argued that there existed a substantial civil basis for the legal prohibition of the preaching of the doctrine of Christ. It is said that “times change and people change with them;” but there is really little truth in the supposed maxim. The grace of God is the only thing that really changes anybody. Men are naturally intolerant, and we still find them invoking the power of the State to enforce religious dogmas, and to bolster up religious creeds; and at the same time justifying their action on civil grounds. In our own country the attempt has been made to justify various measures of religious legislation on the ground that the stability of our institutions and even of the Government itself depends upon the maintenance of our religion. This is especially true of Sunday laws. In his book, “The Sabbath for Man,” Mr. Crafts says:— It is the conviction of the majority that the Nation can not be preserved without religion, nor religion without the Sabbath, nor the Sabbath without laws, therefore Sabbath laws are enacted by the right of self-preservation, not in violation of liberty, but for its protection. Page 248. The argument is plausible, but unsound. It would justify all the persecution of the past and revive the bloody scenes of the Dark Ages. An exact parallel to it is found in Russia to-day. There the faith of the Orthodox Church is the established religion: and Lady Herbert makes the statement in the Dublin Review, for January, that “that which makes the body and strength of the Russian Government is its national religion.” It follows, according to Mr. Crafts’ logic, that the Russian Government is perfectly justifiable in maintaining that religion at any cost. The statement quoted from Lady Herbert is made upon the authority of Father Vanutelli, a Dominican monk who was invited by the Russian Government to visit the principal religious establishments in that country. “He was everywhere cordially received,” says the Review of Reviews, “and had an interview with Pobiedonotzeff,” the famous procurator of the Holy Synod. Pobiedonotzeff, it appears, expressed his views very freely to his guest, saying, as Lady Herbert gives it, “that society in the West was going to ruin and that its decay was owing to the want of religion and the revolutionary and social principles which were being so widely enunciated.” “In Russia,” he said, “we have preserved the principle of authority and the deepest respect for the Christian religion. The people are attached to the Government and thoroughly good at the bottom, and they enjoy a state of prosperity which in other countries does not exist. Here there are no political parties, no parliaments or rival authorities, and we wish to avoid any contact with what might disturb the tranquility of the masses.” Father Vanutelli himself says:— I can not understand how it is that so many persons who visit Russia write about it afterwards without alluding to the main characteristic of the people. Without an appreciation of their religious aspect any description of Russia must be incomplete. The Christian idea is predominant everywhere and nowhere does Christ reign to such an extent as in Russia. The following quotation from an article in the February Century, by Pierre Botkine, secretary of the Russian Legation at Washington, will serve to throw some additional light upon this subject and show what Vanutelli means by saying that “nowhere does Christ reign as in Russia.” Botkine says:— The strength of Russia lies precisely in the unity of power, in the firm faith of the people in their church and in their reliance upon and devotion to the high personality called to occupy the throne. The Russian idea is that the Czar reigns by divine right. He is the acknowledged head of the church as well as of the civil government, and the fealty of the people to him is not simply that of subjects to a civil ruler but to a spiritual lord as well, who has the power to close heaven against them or to admit them to all its enjoyments. Their patriotism and their religious veneration center in a single individual, namely, the Czar; hence his power over them, and the consequent strength of the government which is thus supported by the strongest sentiments of the human soul. In view of what has already been said it is scarcely necessary to say that the union of Church and State in Russia is perfect. Nor is it strange that the government regards any effort to weaken the established church, or to draw away converts from it, much as it would an attempt to undermine the empire itself, or to destroy in the breasts of the people, that feeling of patriotism that is the strength of every stable government. All religious restrictions in Russia are in the interests of political stability. Mr. Botkine says:— The Orthodox Church is the State Church in Russia; and, as I have explained, the strength and might of the empire are considered by us to depend to a great degree upon the firm faith of the people in its doctrines and discipline. Our history abounds in proofs of this. It is therefore natural that our government cherishes and supports the orthodox religion, and tries to prevent the members of that church or their children from heedlessly going off into other communions. This is but putting in other phrase the sentiment already quoted from Mr. Crafts in justification of Sunday laws. In Russia it is the conviction, if not of the majority, at least of the rulers, that the nation can not be preserved without religion, nor religion without the Orthodox Church, nor the Orthodox Church without laws; therefore, such laws are enacted by the right of self-preservation. It is the purpose of the Russian Government to crush out all religious dissent throughout the length and breadth of the empire in the interests of the ideal of Czar Nicholas, “One empire, one tongue, one church;” or in other words, perfect unity and consequently, matchless strength. The motive is not religious but political. The Czar seeks to control the religion of his subjects only that he may the more firmly cement and bind together the various parts and elements in the empire. The logic is just as good in the one case as in the other. The principle is the same in America as in Europe. Mr. Botkine denies that there is any restriction of religious liberty in Russia except where certain obnoxious sects propagate doctrines which the authorities consider subversive of morals or of good order in society. And of the Jews he says: “We did not expel the Jews from the empire, as is often mistakenly charged, though we did restrict their rights as to certain localities of domicile and as to kinds of occupations—police regulations.” This being the case, Mr. Botkine regards the remonstrances sent to the Czar from other countries as most impertinent. “The principle we contend for,” says he, “is home rule.” It will be observed that the arguments urged in justification of restrictions of religious liberty are the same in every country and in every age. Elijah was persecuted because he “troubled” Israel; Daniel was persecuted because he regarded not the king’s command; Christ was put91to death as an enemy of the State; the apostles were denounced and persecuted as disturbers of the peace; Jews and Protestants in Russia have their liberties restricted because they propagate doctrines which the authorities consider subversive of morals and of good order, and tending to weaken the government; and in this country it is urged that the same thing should be done for the very same reasons; indeed, the same principle does prevail to a greater or less extent, especially in our Sunday legislation. In Tennessee and some other States, “otherwise good citizens” are fined, imprisoned, and worked in the chain-gang, for daring to dissent, practically, from the prevailing religion—and this on the plea that their example is prejudicial to good morals! and their acts against the peace and dignity of the State!! Surely we are not so very far ahead of our neighbors or even of the ancients after all! If times do change, people do not change with them to the extent of abandoning the supposed right of the majority or of the rulers to cram their religion, or at least, a portion of it, down the throats of the minority, or of their subjects. No considerable part of the race has yet developed sufficient moral power to yield complete obedience to the acme of all social law: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” C. P. B. The Final Record of the First Religious Congress of the United States.
The Congressional Record containing the proceedings of the House of Representatives for March 3, has the following in reference to the Sunday closing of the World's Fair. The amendment which Mr. O'Neil here gave notice that he would offer did not come before the House from the fact that the pending amendment to which he proposed to attach it was itself lost, leaving no opportunity to present the Sunday opening to the House for its vote. The House therefore did not recede from its previous position, and the Congress of the United States has assumed dictatorship in religion and closed the World's Fair Sunday, the first day of the week, on its interpretation of the divine law. The Congressional Record reads:— Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill. MR. O'NEIL, of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker— MR. POWERS.—Will the gentleman from Illinois in charge of this bill yield for a question? MR. POWERS.—I desire to ask the gentleman from Illinois if it is proposed by the friends of this appropriation to repeal the laws, now in existence, closing the gates of that Exposition on Sunday? MR. DURBOROW.—That, I will state to the gentleman, is not a matter which the friends of this corporation have anything whatever to do with. It is a matter for Congress to deal with as it sees proper. MR. DOCKERY.—I hope the gentleman will answer that question fairly. MR. POWERS.—I desire an affirmative answer to that question, for my vote on this proposition depends on that answer. MR. DURBOROW.—I decline to yield to the gentleman. MR. O'NEIL, of Massachusetts.—I would like to answer the question if the gentleman from Illinois would yield to me. MR. DURBOROW.—I will yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts for five minutes. MR. POWERS.—I desire a distinct answer, if the gentleman pleases. MR. O'NEIL, of Massachusetts.—I will answer the question of the gentleman from Vermont, that if I have an opportunity I propose to offer an amendment to one of these propositions opening the gates of the Fair on Sunday. SEVERAL MEMBERS.—That is right. MR. PICKLER.—And we will vote it down. MR. MORSE.—The legislature of your own State of Massachusetts has unanimously resolved against Sunday opening. MR. O'NEIL, of Massachusetts.—And Mr. Speaker, I desire to have the amendment read which I propose to offer at the proper time. THE SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Richardson].—It will be read for information. THE CLERK read as follows:—
After the word “section,” in line 19, on page 44, insert:
“Provided, That regulations shall be made by the proper authorities of said World's Columbian Exposition with a view to closing to the public on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, the general business of said World's Columbian Exposition, in the sense that all merchandising, unnecessary labor, and machinery shall on that day cease and be stopped, but it may be lawful for the legally constituted authorities to open the place of election here, in the City of Chicago, in the State of Illinois, and also the educational hall and horticultural hall and the art galleries of the World's Columbian Exposition located within the confines of said Jackson Park, to the public on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.” MR. O'NEIL, of Massachusetts.—I only had this read, Mr. Speaker, for information. THE SPEAKER pro tempore.—The Chair so understands. MR. PICKLER.—I would like to ask the gentleman from Massachusetts whether he proposes to charge for admission on Sunday? MR. O'NEIL, of Massachusetts.—I have nothing to do with that. MR. PICKLER.—You have offered the amendment; you ought to specify whether you do or not. MR. O'NEIL, of Massachusetts.—If the gentleman will let me have the floor for a little while I will be very much obliged. THE SPEAKER pro tempore.—The gentleman from Massachusetts declines to be interrupted. MR. O'NEIL, of Massachusetts.—Mr. Speaker, I have been told that if this amendment be offered it will kill all of the appropriations asked for this Fair. MR. POWERS.—Every single one. MR. O'NEIL, of Massachusetts.—I do not care if it does. I am in favor of having this Fair opened so that the working people of Chicago and the world, who visit that city, shall have a chance to get within the gates and have some opportunity of seeing the Exposition on that day. MR. MORSE.—They have petitioned against it. MR. O'NEIL, of Massachusetts.—I do not want to be interrupted by my colleague. MR. MORSE.—But you misrepresent the State of Massachusetts on the subject of Sunday opening. MR. O'NEIL, of Massachusetts.—Mr. Speaker, I repeat I do not want to be interrupted by any colleague of mine, especially when he states that I misrepresent the people of my State. MR. MORSE.—I say you do on this question. You may represent South Boston, but not Massachusetts on the question of Sunday opening. MR. O'NEIL, of Massachusetts.—I say that when I advocate this I am representing the best thought, and best sentiment of my State of Massachusetts, my native State, and it is not the native State of my colleague [Mr. Morse]. [Applause.] Why, Mr. Speaker, this is not the same old fight over and over again, when the mossbacks, who would prevent progress in this country, seek to retard every advance demanded by the people.
You who live in the rural districts perhaps view this subject from a very different standpoint from what we who live in large cities view it.
As this law stands to-day, you have closed up one of the great parks in the city of Chicago. If you will come with me to my city—and I represent that city, and when I say if you will come I will see that you are properly cared for, I mean it—I will show you there a system of parks upon which the city of Boston has expended ten millions of dollars; and if you will go there with me on a pleasant Sunday, you will find twenty and thirty thousand of the common people of the city seeking an outing and a breath of fresh air which they could not get before the establishment of those parks. THE SPEAKER pro tempore.—The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. O'Neil] has expired. MR. DURBOROW.—I yield to the gentleman five minutes more. MR. O'NEIL, of Massachusetts.—Why, sir, when we tried for years to have our public library in that city opened as a reading room on Sunday, we were met by the same cry of a desecration of the Sabbath, and the protest of many of the religious people of that city; but now that it has been opened for years, you could not find a religious denomination calling for its close.
We have our museum opened to the public on Sunday, and we had more people visiting that place on Sunday than on all the other days of the week put together. I want those who live in the rural districts to remember what I say, that the people who are hived up in tenement houses ought to have some place to go on a Sunday. You complain about the crowding of your tenement houses. You complain about corner loafing. This thing is asked in order to do away with that, and the history of the city of Boston has proved that it does away with it. These people must get air and must leave the rooms in which they sleep and live. When we ask you to give them a chance for an outing in the green fields, when we ask you to give them a chance to visit art galleries and educational institutions, when we ask you to modify this Sunday law in relation to the World's Fair, we are appealing to you in the interests of the working people, in the interest of education, aye, and I say in the interest of religion and morality, too. MR. PICKLER.—Will the gentleman allow a question? MR. O'NEIL, of Massachusetts.—Will you let me alone? Let somebody alone if you can. THE SPEAKER pro tempore.—The gentleman from Massachusetts declines to be interrupted. MR. O'NEIL, of Massachusetts.—Now, Mr. Speaker, as I say, this House has been flooded with petitions from the working people of the country. You have been told by the president of the Federation of Labor that when the Centennial Exposition was held in Philadelphia, hundreds of thousands of working people, who could not spare a day during the week to visit that great educational institution, were unable to attend it at all. Now, we ask that the same thing may not be repeated at Chicago. We ask that the people who are obliged to work six days in the week may have one day in the week when they can see the sights that their more favored friends, relatives, and fellow-citizens have a chance to go to see during the six days of the week.
I do not care whether this proposition jeopardizes the appropriation for the World's Fair or not. I offer it because I believe it is right and because I believe it is demanded by the great common people of the country; and when the time comes I will offer this amendment to the section of the bill which I speak of.
[Here the hammer fell.] MR. JOSEPH D. TAYLOR.—Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. O'Neil] has seen fit to notify the House that he proposes to offer an amendment which provides that the World's Fair shall be open on Sunday. That question was settled during the last session of Congress; and I have been informed by the friends of the World's Fair that there is no disposition whatever on their part to reopen this question. The conclusion reached last session when two millions and a half of dollars were appropriated, with the understanding that the Fair should be closed on Sunday, should not be disturbed, and it is very unfortunate that this question is agitated just now.
It is a question that was passed upon after full consideration, and all parties are bound by the conclusion reached. Great as this Fair is, I should prefer to see it abandoned a thousand times rather than to see the Christian Sabbath desecrated and discarded.
Grover Cleveland, the President-elect, who will be inaugurated to-morrow, did a great thing last fall during the campaign when he declined the invitation to go to Chicago to participate in the dedication of the World's Fair buildings because the White House at that time was draped with emblems of mourning on account of the death of the wife of President Harrison. He did another great thing when he left his home in New York a few weeks since and went to Fremont, Ohio, to attend the funeral of ex-President Hayes.
In both these instances he touched the hearts of the people, but he did a greater thing two days ago when he telegraphed to Secretary Noble to close the Pension Building on Sunday next and prevent the Sunday promenade concert that had been arranged for that day. [Applause on the floor and in the galleries.] No man in this country holds his hand closer to the pulse of the American people than Grover Cleveland, and we will do well to profit by the example he has set us. [Renewed applause.]
The fact that Secretary Noble had previously issued a like order does not lessen the credit to which President Cleveland is entitled. THE SPEAKER.—The Chair will state to the occupants of the galleries that they are here by the courtesy of the House; and that the rules of the House forbid any manifestation of approval or disapproval. The Chair hopes that this suggestion will be sufficient to induce the occupants of the galleries to refrain from any demonstration. MR. BABBITT.—Mr. Speaker, The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. O'Neil] sees fit to denounce all who differ with him on this subject, and they are classed as being bigots and witch-burners. He has stated here that he does not care whether this appropriation fails or not if the gates of the Fair be not opened on Sunday; and this, too, against the protest of over fifteen million of the citizens of the United States who authorized Congress to give the Columbian Exposition five million dollars on condition that the gates of the Exposition be closed on Sunday. And now he publicly notifies the House that he will insist on passing his amendment to repeal that part of the agreement, and I as publicly notify those gentlemen entertaining his opinions that if this appropriation92fails they have invited it by a cowardly disregard of a sacred contract.
He has furnished us glowing descriptions of the parks in Boston, where, he assures us, the laboring man may go and worship with nature, but he does not inform us that these parks are free; there is no admission fee of fifty cents for each member of his family to interfere with the exercise of their religious impulses.
How is it to be at Chicago? He claims to speak for the laboring man, but he does not represent him here or the noble lineage from which he sprang. MR. LITTLE.—Mr. Speaker, I did not expect to take part in the discussion of this question, and had not the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. O'Neil] given notice of his intention to offer an amendment, relating to Sunday closing I should have kept my peace. But, I want to say a word upon that amendment, for I consider that of greater importance to the people of this country than these appropriations.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the amendment that has been proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. O'Neil], nearly every one upon the floor of this House who undertakes to speak against the Sunday opening commences and closes his remarks with the statement that the working people of this country are opposed to Sunday opening. I want to say that during last summer, as a member of the Select Committee on the Columbian Exposition, I caused to be written to every national organization of labor where the membership reached nine thousand, a letter asking the opinion of the officials of these organizations as to what the desire of organized labor was upon this question.
I received replies from the representatives of many hundreds of thousands of workingmen, and in only one instance was there a suggestion that the Fair should be closed on Sunday. That exceptional reply was from the chief of the locomotive engineers, Mr. Arthur, who stated that he did not consider that Congress had any business to deal with this question, but that very many members of his organization preferred to have the Exposition closed on Sunday because keeping it open would entail extra labor upon them.
Now, when gentlemen rise upon this floor and say that the workingmen of the country are opposed to the Exposition being open on Sunday, I think they can not have looked into the question carefully, and I would ask some of them to state what means they have taken to ascertain facts to justify the statements they have made. MR. DURBOROW.—I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Dickerson]. MR. DICKERSON.—Mr. Speaker, I am glad to avail myself of these two minutes, first, to state that I favor the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts. I do so, sir, because I want to protest against any sort of legislation by Congress looking to the recognition of the question of religion at all. That is a matter with which we have nothing to do, and the police regulation, the conduct and morals of people in the State of Illinois, is, by the Constitution and by every inherent right of citizenship lodged with those who are to exercise government control in local affairs.
[Here the hammer fell.] MR. DURBOROW.—Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Holman] will use some of his time now. MR. HOLMAN.—I yield five minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Hooker]. MR. HOOKER, of Mississippi.—Mr. Speaker, with reference to the question of opening the Exhibition on Sunday, I had occasion to make a speech in the first session of this Congress, in which I said what I now repeat, that I think this great Columbian Exhibition ought to respect the Sabbath day and ought to pay regard to the popular sentiment as expressed in the numerous petitions which have come from the great body of Christian people of all denominations. If the spirit of the great discoverer of America could descend upon this House—he who when the bird lighted upon the masthead and (the perils of storm and tempest being past) the watch proclaimed, “Land ho!” dropped upon his knees, thanking the Almighty that his great efforts for the discovery of this continent had been realized—he would say that what the Christian world sanctions as the Sabbath should, out of respect for our great Maker, be observed in connection with this great Columbian Exposition. (Applause.)
[Here the hammer fell.] MR. MORSE.—Mr. Speaker, I rise to a parliamentary inquiry. THE SPEAKER.—The gentleman will state it. MR. MORSE.—Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. O'Neil took exception to my saying he misrepresents our State on the question of Sunday opening. Would it be in order for me at this time to ask unanimous consent to have sent to the Clerk's desk and read, in answer to my colleague from Massachusetts [Mr. O'Neil], the resolutions unanimously adopted June 11, 1891, by the Massachusetts house of representatives against and denouncing the Sunday opening of the World's Columbian Exposition? THE SPEAKER.—It would not. [Laughter.] MR. WATSON.—(to Mr. Morse) That was well done. MR. PICKLER.—Yes; it was. The fact is in the Record now, and you can not rub it out. Yes, it is true, the facts of this whole matter are in the Record now, and they can not be rubbed out. Has it been well done? True to Their Principles.
THE General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventists held at Battle Creek, Mich., February 17 to March 6, unanimously adopted the following preamble and resolutions:— WHEREAS, There has been introduced in the legislature of the State of Tennessee, an act which distinctly names the Seventh-day Adventists, and proposes to legislate in their behalf in the following words:— AN ACT to Prohibit Interference with the Religious Rights or Liberties of Certain Classes of Persons: SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee that Section 2289 of Millican & Vertrees' compilation of the statute laws of the State of Tennessee be and is hereby so amended as not to apply to persons known as Seventh-day Baptists, Adventists, or any other persons whose religious faith teaches them to conscientiously believe that another day than the one generally observed by the people of the State is the proper one authorized by God as a day of rest. Provided, that their usual avocations shall not interfere in any manner with the peace, quiet, or proper rights of others. And provided further, that said persons shall observe one day in each week as a day of rest, as commanded in the Scriptures. SEC. 2. Be it further enacted, That all laws or parts of laws in conflict with this act be and are hereby repealed. SEC. 3. Be it further enacted, That this act take effect on and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it. WHEREAS, This proposed act does require that our religious faith shall teach us to conscientiously believe that another day than the one generally observed is the proper one authorized by God; and that we shall observe one day in each week as a day of rest, as commanded in the Scriptures, and— WHEREAS, Our consent to this act would be only to surrender to the State our God-given right to be religious or not religious, to observe or not to observe a day according to the dictates of our own consciences and the convictions of our own minds; and would be only to consent that the State shall take judicial and supervising cognizance of our religious beliefs and our conscientious observances; and would be only to consent that the State shall be the interpreter and expounder of the Scriptures for us; and would be to consent that there should be enforced upon others that—the observance of Sunday—which we would not have enforced upon ourselves, and would therefore be a violation of that blessed precept of our Saviour and Master: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye even so unto them”—in short that it would be to consent that we and all others should be deprived of the dearest rights of mankind, therefore be it— Resolved, By us, the Seventh-day Adventists in General Conference assembled, for and in behalf of the Seventh-day Adventists in Tennessee and all other places, That while appreciating the good intention of the author of this proposed act, we beg to and hereby do enter our most solemn and emphatic protest against the passage of this act, or any other of similar import, by the State of Tennessee or any other State or government on earth. Resolved, That this preamble and resolutions be printed, and that a copy be placed in the hands of each member of the legislature and officer of the State government of the State of Tennessee. And be it further— Resolved, That a committee be appointed to carry this protest to the legislature of Tennessee at its present session, to explain as fully as occasion may allow, our reasons for the position which we are compelled to take in this matter. These resolutions have now been presented to the legislature of the State of Tennessee and the reasons for the action have been given. What influence, if any, they will have upon the action of that body it is impossible to tell. But whatever may be the immediate effect of the resolutions they have at least gone on record as a testimony against the iniquity of religious legislation upon whatever pretext. The whole Sunday law of Tennessee ought to be repealed, as ought every other Sunday law, and this protest ought to speedily result in a general demand for such repeal, not in one State but in every State in the Union.