Is This “the Breath of the Puritan”?
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
The Western Christian Union is the name of a paper that is published weekly in the city of Oakland. We are thus explicit because, from what we shall quote from it, some might think that it is published in some remote portion of the world, where Christianity has not yet penetrated. Not only is it published in “the Athens of the Pacific Coast,” but its editor is the Rev. G. W. Bothwell, D. D., pastor of the Second Congregationalist Church of Oakland. In his issue of March 22 the editor has a diatribe against the Adventists for the work which they did in securing signatures to the petitions against religious legislation by Congress, though we cannot see why he should level all his guns at the Adventists, since men of every denomination and profession signed that petition, and worked for it. After saying that if the Blair Sunday-Rest bill should become a law, “it will be the formulated sentiments of nine-tenths of all the evangelical churches of the country,” thus admitting that it is wholly a religious bill, he proceeds thus:— “Against these majorities, constituted as they are, why are our Adventist friends continuously protesting? We are weary of Ishmaelism in theology and upon questions of public morals. The methods employed in securing many of the 31,000 names of alleged citizens of California, recently presented in Congress, were not creditable to any people calling themselves religious. We refer to their practice of button-holing unsuspecting citizens in the railroad waiting-rooms, and on the street corners—not a few of whom were wholly unfamiliar with the question, and of inducing them to sign a narrow, sectarian protest, under the specious plea that the Constitution of the United States was threatened. We had entertained a high opinion of this people until we were forced to observe how they secured signatures to their recent petition.” Well, we are glad that he bears testimony to the fact that people were button-holed before they signed the petition against religious legislation. He has been forced to observe the methods employed by those who canvassed for signatures. He is sure that they actually got near enough to the men whose names appear on it to button-hole them. And over 31,000—about 10,000 more—have been thus approached. Yet Mr. Bothwell is not pleased. Indeed, he feels very much grieved over the course taken. Why? Was it because he thinks the canvassers were too painstaking? No; he is grieved and indignant and angry to think that the canvassers should actually button-hole unsuspecting persons, and ask them to sign the petition. Doubtless he would have had them send a postal card to every person a week beforehand, informing them that on such a day they would be pleased to meet them to confer about the propriety of asking Congress not to pass a law enforcing religious observances. Then, no doubt, he would have had a crier precede each canvasser, and announce his mission, so that no “unsuspecting citizens” could possibly be approached. But if he would have had all this precaution taken in securing signatures; if he feels so indignant at the thought that men were actually button-holed without previous warning, who can picture what his feelings must be at the thought that of the 14,437,744 alleged petitioners for a national Sunday law, only 407 had any opportunity to be button-holed about it? It has been some time since we exposed the iniquitous scheme by which the friends of the Blair Sunday bill sought to make Congress believe that public sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of their measure, therefore we show it up again in another part of this paper, with a few points that were not previously noticed. Please turn and read that before you read further, and think that a man who has no word of condemnation or apology for such a course, says that it was disreputable to go to men in person and ask them to read the petition and sign it. What is the ground of his objection? Simply this, that so many bona fide signatures have been obtained to the protest. As what follows will show, he thinks it outrageous that any should dare protest against being ruled by a few self-constituted religious leaders. Passing by more of the same unco guid sort we come to the following, which carries with it far more than the breath of the Puritan; it is the breath of the Inquisition:— “Most of the States make provision for the exercise of the peculiar tenets of belief which are entertained by the Adventists. They can worship on98Saturday, and call it the Sabbath, if they choose, but there let their privileges end. Instead of thankfully making use of concessions granted them, and then going off quietly and attending to their own business, as they ought, they start out making unholy alliances that they may defeat the purposes of their benefactors. None of these bills are aimed at them, but if they fail to appreciate the fact, they may yet call down upon themselves such a measure of public disfavor as that legislation embarrassing to them may result.” Shades of Dominic! Did anyone ever hear of more cool assumption? “Upon what meat doth this our Cæsar feed, that he has grown so great?” Seventh-day people “can worship on Saturday, and call it the Sabbath, if they choose, but there let their privileges end.” If they are not thankful for these “concessions,” and if they work against “the purposes of their benefactors,” they may call down upon themselves such a measure of public disfavor as that “legislation embarrassing to them may result.” Now what does this mean? Simply this: That these Sunday-law people are beginning to assume that the Lord created the earth for their especial benefit, and that it is a great “concession” on their part for them to allow anybody even to think differently from them. Those who do not do as they do ought to be thankful that they are privileged to live in this country. They are the “benefactors” of Seventh-day people, because they have tolerated them so long. Did the Papacy in its worst days ever assume any more lordly position? It means further that if Seventh-day people will keep perfectly quiet, and be content with the privilege of resting on Saturday, they will not be molested. But let them, as Mr. Edwards said, begin to “rave;” that is, let them but teach their conscientious convictions to others, and then “legislation embarrassing to them may result.” This can mean nothing else than that, whereas Seventh-day people are allowed, by existing and proposed Sunday laws, to rest on Saturday if they choose, they will be prohibited from doing even this if they rebel against their “benefactors,” and refuse to rest also on Sunday, and if they attempt to stir up others to similar rebellion. This is a declaration of intention on the part of the Sunday-law agitators a little in advance of anything we have previously heard. Mr. Bothwell says of Seventh-day people that “none of these [Sunday] bills are aimed at them.” We cannot say definitely as to that, but we know where they always hit. We know that Sunday laws, whatever the purpose for which they are enacted, are always used for the purpose of “embarrassing” those who observe the seventh day of the week. In 1885, Arkansas had Sunday laws reading as follows:— “SECTION 1883. Every person who shall on the Sabbath, or Sunday, be found laboring, or shall compel his apprentice or servant to labor or perform service other than customary household duties of daily necessity, comfort, or charity, on conviction thereof shall be fined one dollar for each separate offense.
“SEC. 1884. Every apprentice or servant compelled to labor on Sunday shall be deemed a separate offense of the master.
“SEC. 1885. The provision of this act shall not apply to steamboats and other vessels navigating the waters of the State, nor such manufacturing establishments as require to be kept in continual operation.
“SEC. 1886. Persons who are members of any religious society who observe as a Sabbath any other day of the week than the Christian Sabbath, or Sunday, shall not be subject to the penalties of this act [the Sunday law], so that they observe one day in seven, agreeable to the faith and practice of their church or society.” In the session of the Arkansas Legislature of 1885, section 1886 was repealed, by act of March 3. The object of those who secured the repeal of that section was, as they said, to close the saloons. It was claimed that, under cover of that section, certain Jews who kept saloons in Little Rock had successfully defied the law against Sunday saloons, and that there was no way to secure the proper enforcement of the law without the repeal of that section. The legislators believed the statements made, and repealed the section as stated. “Bear in mind that the object of this movement was said to be to close the saloons on Sunday; and what discussion there was on the bill in both the Senate and the House, shows that such was the object, so far as the legislators understood it. But when the act was secured, and was framed into a law, not a saloon was closed, nor was there an attempt made, any more than before, to close them. Not one of the saloon keepers was prosecuted. And in Little Rock itself, during the session of the Legislature of 1887, when the law was in full force, up to the time of the restoration of the exemption clause, the saloons kept their doors wide open, and conducted their business with no effort at concealment, the same as they had before the act was passed. But, so far as we have been able to learn by diligent investigation, from the day of its passage, the law was used for no other purpose than to punish peaceable citizens of the State who observed the seventh day as the Sabbath, and exercised their God-given right to work on Sunday.” A. T. Jones, of the AMERICAN SENTINEL, who makes the above statement, has had the privilege of investigating the records of the cases of those who were prosecuted under the law as amended, and has published them in his pamphlet, “Civil Government and Religion.” In another article, entitled, “Where Sunday Laws Hit,” in this week’s issue, we shall present some of those cases, that our readers may learn the practical workings of “temperance Sunday laws.” As they read these things we ask them to decide whether or not they want the Inquisition set up in this country. People may talk as much as they please about the enlightenment of this nineteenth century, and the impossibility for persecution to arise; but every candid person whose eyes are open must see that we are upon the very eve of as bitter a persecution as ever disgraced this earth. The minds of men are being inflamed by ecclesiastical leaders, and all that is needed is the color of law to give the malignant passions of bigots full exercise. American Sentinel Readers on the Pacific Coast
SOMEONE in Pennsylvania writes thus briefly to us: “You will greatly oblige me if you will keep the SENTINEL on the Pacific Coast.” This person is modest. He doesn’t want to control the earth, but only that part of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains. We cannot oblige him, because there are too many thousands of people east of the mountains who want the AMERICAN SENTINEL to come to them. Sunday Law Agitation in Key West
THE KEY WEST (Florida) Democrat says that “what is now agitating the average Key West store keeper, to the exclusion of other matters, is the proposed enforcement of the Sunday law.” It adds: “Without being fanatical upon the subject, we would unequivocally say that we are in favor of its enforcement without fear or favor,” and says that the sheriff of the county pledges himself to enforce the law, and that the mayor and the marshal are also pledged to it. Thus we see that the Sunday question is coming to the front in all sections. Religious Control of Chicago Schools
A FRIEND in Chicago writes as follows in a personal letter to the editor of the SENTINEL:— “There cannot be too much vigilance or too much sounding forth of danger. I am told by a high-school girl that sixty-five teachers have been removed in this city within a few months, who were Protestants, and that sixty Catholics were among the teachers put in their places. If the Protestants try to manage schools on a religious basis, they will find themselves outwitted as well as outnumbered (in large cities) by the Romanist element. Yours for Americanism and undefiled religion.” Arizona Sunday Bill Defeated
THE Tombstone (Arizona) Epitaph of March 9 says of the Sunday bill, which we have elsewhere mentioned:— “The Sunday-Rest bill has been laid to sleep for two years at least. The vote making the bill the special order for the evening was considered, and the bill passed in the council some days since was taken up in the House this afternoon, and killed by a vote of fourteen to nine. There were but few persons in the lobby at the time the bill was defeated, but the news spread rapidly through the town and was the general topic of conversation. It is generally understood that the Governor would have vetoed the bill had it passed.” Sunday Newspapers and Domestic Labor
The Omaha Daily Bee of March 17 contains an article by Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, on Sunday newspapers and amusements, the closing paragraphs of which are exceedingly pointed, as will be seen from the following reprint of them:— “I cannot see that setting type in order to provide some intellectual pabulum for a community is more of a desecration of the Sabbath than setting tables and cooking food for the family. To be consistent, those who insist on Sunday being a day of rest, should make it a season of fasting and self-denial for themselves, and of freedom for their wives and servants from all manual labor. The dinner should be cooked on Saturday and served cold on Sunday with primitive simplicity. But the clergy as a class (to say nothing of most of the sons of Adam), are proverbial for their love of good eating, hence we hear very little from the pulpit as to the sin of good dinners on the ‘Lord’s day.’” “According to what system of morals is it more sinful for Patrick to set type and read his paper, than for Bridget to cook a turkey and plum pudding and read nothing on Sunday?” The Gospel Politician and Church-State Union
In the notices of Miss Willard's forth-coming autobiography, she is mentioned as claiming to be a “gospel politician.” That means that she favors spreading the gospel by political methods, which is, by voting upon it, and making laws concerning it. In other words, she is devoted to the union of Church and State. But that doesn't make us think that such a union ought to be consummated. The apostle Paul said that even an angel from Heaven should be cursed if he preached a different gospel from that delivered by Christ. Ann Arbor Suppresses Sunday Newspapers
It is reported that Ann Arbor has suppressed the sale of Sunday newspapers in its borders. The Constitution and Sunday.
By A. T. J.
Dr. Crafts wrote to the Detroit Free Press February 17, stating some of the objects of the National Sunday bill, and the Free Press replied:— “If our correspondent will bear in mind that in the eye of the federal law, as well as of the Federal Constitution, Sunday has no other status than Saturday, or any other day of the week, he will possibly see what the assumption of power for which he asks would involve. It would involve the possibility of prohibiting the running of trains between States on any day in the week, and, consequently, upon all days in the week, which is an absurdity. It involves another, and, if possible, a greater absurdity—the power to compel the running of inter-State trains upon every day in the week, and as many times a day as Congress may direct. “There has never been, that we are aware of, any serious claim that the congressional power referred to extended thus far, and we have no fears that Congress will make any such claim. That body is quite as likely, we should think, under the pretense of regulating inter-State commerce, to prohibit the running of smoking-cars on inter-State trains, or the chewing of gum by passengers thereon, or the sale of peanuts for more than five cents a pint. We do not mean to intimate for a moment that these subjects have any natural affinity for, or connection with, Sunday rest. But we do mean to assert that it would be just as ridiculous for Congress, under the pretense of exercising its regulative power over commerce between the States, to prohibit the running of trains on Sunday as it would to enact the other prohibitions suggested.” Further, Dr. Crafts had said that the Constitution contains a Sunday-Rest law for the President. The Free Press made to this the singular reply that the Constitution makes no mention of Sunday, and commended to Dr. Crafts a re-examination of the Constitution. We approve of the recommendation of the Free Press, that the Doctor should examine the Constitution more closely; but if the Free Press had examined the Constitution as closely as it asks Dr. Crafts to, it ought to know that it does make mention of Sunday. True, it does not make mention of Sunday in any such a way as Dr. Crafts would make out, as enacting a Sunday law; but it does mention Sunday, and says that “if any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sunday excepted) after it is presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless Congress by their adjournment prevent its return.” But so far from this intending to be a law regulating the rest of the President, it is simply a recognition of the right of the President to keep Sunday religiously if he choose. In this the Constitution recognizes the fact that the President may be one who regards Sunday as a holy day, and respects his conscientious convictions, as it now does of every man, by providing that he shall not be compelled to count Sunday amongst the number of business days. The Constitution of the United States recognizes the right of every man to observe Sunday if he wishes, and it recognizes the right not to keep it if he chooses. It respects a man’s conscientious convictions, whether he be a Christian or not a Christian. This is the sole meaning of the expression, “Sunday excepted.” But the query is, How could the Detroit Free Press ever have made such a mistake as to say that the Constitution makes no mention of Sunday? The Constitution of the United States is worthy of a good deal more study than ninety-nine out of every one hundred people in the United States ever give to it. Fraudulent Indorsements of the Sunday Bill
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
In the “Monthly Document” of the American Sabbath Union, for December, the following appeared in a circular which editors were requested to publish:—
“We ask every religious paper to publish our petition, and every church and preachers’ meeting and religious conference or convention to indorse the petition by resolution, and also, as far as possible, by individual signatures, which duplicate its strength.” That is plain enough, too. The leaders of the American Sabbath Union deliberately urged people to perpetrate fraud in securing indorsements of the Sunday-Rest bill. The above shows that the indorsement “by vote” was considered the chief thing. Whenever there was an assembly they wanted those present to vote the indorsement of the organization, so that all the members could be counted as favoring the petition, and then they wanted the strength of the petition duplicated, “as far as possible,” by individual signatures. This shows that the securing of individual signatures was considered a secondary matter, except that those individual signatures would duplicate the strength of the petition. A church of three hundred members could indorse the petition by vote some Sunday evening, and the whole three hundred counted for it, even though no more than one hundred members were present. Then zealous workers could secure the individual signatures of two-thirds of the members, including those present at the time of the vote; and so from a church of three hundred members, of whom only one hundred had seen the petition, and only one hundred more had heard of it, a list of five hundred petitioners could be sent in. And just such fraud as this was provided for and urged by the leaders in the Sunday-law movement. The method of indorsement “by vote” was so much easier, however, that, as will be seen, very little effort was made to secure individual signatures. On Wednesday, January 16, the first petitions were presented to Congress. After senators from several States, including Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Indiana, had presented petitions from churches, labor unions, Woman’s Christian Temperance Unions, etc., from their respective States, Mr. Blair arose and said:— “I present petitions of several bodies, praying for the passage of a Sunday-Rest law. Of the petitions, the following analysis is submitted by those who desire their presentation:— Petitions from national bodies:
CONTENTS- Individual signatures........................ 407
- Representative signatures by indorsements of bodies and meetings.................... 14,174,337
Total........................................ 14,174,744 “Analysis of the latter:— “First indorsement is that of the American Sabbath Union, which was officially constituted by official action of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Home Missionary Society of the Baptist Church, the General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church (North and South), and the Synod of the Reformed Church, five denominations, whose membership together is 5,977,693. Of the membership of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the indorsement of whose international convention stands second, at least 20,000 citizens of the United States. Of the Knights of Labor, the indorsement of whose international convention stands third, at least 219,000 citizens of the United States. The Presbyterian General Assembly, North, whose action stands next, had at the time of the indorsement 722,071 members. The convention of Christian Workers, whose indorsement is next, had 450 present when the unanimous vote of indorsement was taken. The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, which comes next, had 185,521 at the time of the vote. The Roman Catholics, for whom Cardinal Gibbons speaks, number 7,200,000.” Now what do we learn from this? Several things, namely: That out of 14,174,744 alleged petitioners for the Sunday law, only 407 persons actually signed the petition. That in order to produce a greater effect, the petitions were presented first by States and Territories, and then in bulk. In that way the strength of the petitions, which had already been duplicated, was duplicated again. But this is not all. We find that the entire membership of the Methodist, the Baptist, and the Presbyterian Churches in the United States is taken to help make up the 14,174,744 alleged petitioners. This was done because the annual convention of those bodies indorsed the petition. A vote by a few hundred people was thus swelled into nearly seven million. Not only so, but by the wording of the petition, every member of those churches was certified to as being “21 years of age or more.” Of course everybody recognizes that as another fraud. Still further: The entire membership of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, the Knights of Labor, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, is counted on the strength of a vote taken by a few members of those bodies, in convention assembled. Of course the members of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union could, on general principles, be counted as favoring the bill; but as they are Christian women, they of course belong to some one of the churches previously reported. The same is true largely of the Knights of Labor and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. Not only were they represented as favoring the bill, although but few of them had ever heard of it, and many were opposed, but they were represented three times, as we have already seen. More yet: After this 14,000,000 and more petitioners, only 407 of whom ever petitioned, had been presented to Congress as organizations, then as churches, etc., Mr. Blair arose again and said:— “I have here a petition of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union of New Jersey, with 6,000 members; of Indiana, 2,500 members; of Massachusetts, 6,000; of Delaware, 800; of Illinois, 9,000; of Iowa, 6,000; of Pennsylvania, 6,000; of Dakota, 1,800, and the National nearly 20,000, praying Congress, etc.” Just think! Petitions from many of these State temperance unions had been first presented by other senators. Then they were presented in the churches, then in the National Union, then again separately, and then once more in the National W. C. T. U. again; and after all this some more petitions were presented from Temperance Unions and “Sabbath Associations.” Some of these good women were therefore presented as petitioners not less than six times in one day; and since then petitions have been presented from the same people nearly every day while the session lasted. But this is not all by any means. Mr. Blair said in his analysis of the petitions: “The Roman Catholics, for whom Cardinal Gibbons speaks, number 7,200,000.” Cardinal Gibbons had written a letter to Mr. Crafts, personally favoring the Sunday bill, and on the strength of that letter, the American Sabbath Union counted 7,200,000 names. Not only that, but they certified that all the Catholics in the United States, men, women, and children—are “21 years of age or more.” Not only did Cardinal Gibbons say nothing about indorsing the petition for anybody but himself,100which he clearly had no right to do, but he himself, as will be seen by his letter, which follows, declares that he had no thought of committing anybody else. One thing more shows the unprincipled methods employed to manufacture a huge list in favor of the Sunday bill. Not content to have the separate labor organizations indorse it by “representation,” that is, by a vote of a few, which could not represent the body, Mr. Crafts has lately gone to work to secure the indorsement of the Federated Trades, by which means he is able to count all the laboring men again. Thus he can count every man as many times as there are associations to which he belongs. Not only so, but by their peculiar scheme of representative indorsement, they count many who are positively opposed to their movement, and who have signed the counter petition. Now we ask the readers of the SENTINEL to decide whose image and whose superscription this Sunday movement bears. Does it bear the stamp of God? God cannot lie. But there is another being, the enemy of God and of all righteousness, the prince of the power of the air, “the spirit which now worketh in the children of disobedience,” whose sole method of work is by fraud and deceit. Of him it is written that “he is a liar, and the father of it.” We make no further statements, but leave the reader to trace the parentage of the Sunday movement as best he can. Let those who have been misrepresented by being counted in these wholesale indorsements, and those who have not been aware of the character of the movement, protest vigorously, and at once, so that the leaders in the Sunday-law movement may no longer be able to pose before Congress as the representatives of all goodness and honesty. Whose Image and Superscription Is This?
By Editor
It is evident that the leaders in the American Sabbath Union are considerably disturbed over the SENTINEL’S disclosure of their crooked methods in obtaining indorsements to their petitions to Congress. This is shown by the fact that they are endeavoring to shield themselves by insinuating that unfair methods were employed by those who secured signatures to the counter petition. It is worthy of note, however, and should be remembered by all, that the worst charge that has yet been brought by the most bigoted Sunday-law worker is that people were “button-holed” and asked to sign it. Inasmuch as no one could put his own signature to the petition unless the canvasser did come pretty close to him with it, we regard this as a good testimonial to the conscientiousness with which the work was performed. We have before called attention to the frauds practiced by the active workers for a Sunday law, but we fear that some have lost sight of them. Many people still think that fourteen million signatures have actually been obtained to the petition asking Congress to make a Sunday law. We ourselves were deceived at the first into thinking that two or three million signatures had been obtained; but when the number jumped at once from six million to fourteen million, by the letter from Cardinal Gibbons, we knew there was fraud; and from that time we kept discovering fresh frauds. Following is a brief statement of them. The petition for a Sunday law, to which it is claimed that upwards of fourteen million signatures have been obtained, reads thus:— “The undersigned, adult residents of the United States, 21 years of age or more, hereby earnestly petition your honorable body to pass a bill forbidding in the Nation’s mail and military service, and in inter-State commerce, and in the District of Columbia and the Territories, all Sunday work, traffic, etc.”
That is plain enough to be understood by anybody. If that had been circulated in a legitimate manner, for individual signatures, no complaint could have been made. But right on the face of the sheet which contained the petition, provision was deliberately made for fraud. Immediately below the petition was the following note:— “When a labor organization or church, or any other society, indorses the petition BY VOTE, let the ‘name’ of the organization be signed, with the attesting signatures of the presiding officer and clerk or secretary, with place and date, and in the margin, under ‘number of petitioners,’ indicate the numbers in the organization petitioning.”
This meant that at any meeting of any church or society, a vote could be taken on the petition. If a majority of the members present voted in favor of it, the presiding officer and the clerk would sign their names and set down the number of members in the entire church or society. Now it must be evident to the most zealous partisan that such a plan could not by any possibility secure an individual expression of opinion. In the first place it allowed a part to speak for the whole, and in the second place it counted those members who were opposed to the bill, as favoring it. In many cases a minority would speak for the whole. Not only was this provision made for fraud, but people were urged to commit fraud by securing the indorsement of the same person twice. The following from Mr. D. E. Lindsay, of Baltimore, a close observer of the National Reform movement, and a good friend of the AMERICAN SENTINEL, should be preserved, as it exposes the fallacy of the claim of the leaders of the American Sabbath Union, that Cardinal Gibbons indorsed the Sunday-Rest bill in behalf of the Catholic Church:— Located as I am near the residence of Cardinal Gibbons, and being a reader of the Catholic News, published at Washington, D. C., and the Catholic Mirror, published in this city (Baltimore, Md.), I have watched for some time with interest the sayings of the different Catholic writers, until I was convinced that the so-called Protestants, in their eagerness to secure the passage of the Sunday law, would forsake the true principles of Protestantism, and run after the very church against which the famous protest was made in 1529, when the emperor had commissioned his brother Ferdinand to announce that the decrees of the former diet, which had allowed liberty of action to all States in matters of religion, were now absolutely annulled by imperial command. Having this evidence before me from Catholic writers, as well as Protestant, I took the liberty to write the Cardinal a personal letter asking his purpose in signing the petition for the passage of the Blair Sunday bill. In reply the Cardinal forwarded me the following letter by his Chancellor, J. P. Donahue:— “CARDINAL’S RESIDENCE,
408 NORTH CHARLES ST., Baltimore, Md.,
Feb. 27, 1889. “MY DEAR SIR: In reply to your favor dated Feb. 25, 1889, duly received, His Eminence Cardinal Gibbons desires me to write to you, that whatsoever countenance His Eminence has given to the ‘Sunday law’ referred to in your favor, as he had not the authority, so he had not the intention, of binding the archbishops, the bishops, or the Catholic laity of the United States. His Eminence bids me say to you that he was moved to write a letter favoring the passage of the bill, mainly from a consideration of the rest and recreation which would result to our poor overworked fellow-citizens, and of the facility which it would then afford them of observing the Sunday in a religious and decorous way. “It is incorrect to assume that His Eminence, in the alleged words of Senator Blair set forth in your favor, ‘signed the bill, thus pledging 7,200,000 Catholics as indorsing the bill.’” “I have the honor to remain, with much respect,
yours faithfully, J. P. DONAHUE, “To D. E. Lindsay, Esq., 708 Rayner Avenue,
Baltimore, Md.”