The American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 16
WHETHER men were actually forbidden by the ‘Blue Laws’ to kiss their wives on SuPage 1
WHETHER men were actually forbidden by the ‘Blue Laws’ to kiss their wives on Sunday or not, does not affect the principle. Possibly they never had even in New Haven any regulation so silly as that, but they certainly had many just as unwarranted. They did banish Quakers under pain of death; they did forbid running or walking on Sunday except reverently to and from meeting; they did forbid the use of the Book of Common Prayer; they did prohibit hair cutting and shaving on Sunday; they did make church membership prerequisite to residence in the Colony; they did forbid the giving of food or lodging to a Quaker or other heretic; and these things were even more wicked, though as before intimated, less silly, than any of the fabled “Blue Laws” of which we have ever heard. THE Christian Inquirer, a local Baptist paper, published in this city, says: “The time has come when it must be affirmed that no public moneys can be used for sectarian purposes.” But why does the Inquirer use the term, “sectarian,” rather than the word, “religious”? Would it be willing to see public money used in the promulgation of what is popularly known as, “unsectarian religious instruction”?—It certainly looks that way. But does it not know that from the standpoint of Roman Catholics and Jews, this so-called “unsectarian” religious instruction is most intensely sectarian? It is all well enough to denounce the efforts of Romanists to secure a share of the public funds to pay for teaching Romanism, but they122are no more to blame for it than are Protestants for doing the same thing in the interests of Protestantism, and that is just what this “unsectarian” religious instruction is. The only consistent and tenable position is, that no public funds shall be used either directly or indirectly for giving any kind of religious instruction. THE Washington correspondent of the Examiner (Baptist), takes occasion, in noticing the late hearing on the Sunday closing of the World's Fair, to say, “On a former occasion, when the Sunday observance law was before our Commissioners and urged by many of our local pastors, the strongest kind of a protest against such legislation was made by men styling themselves Baptists.” And why should not Baptists protest against all such legislation? Why should a people who have for centuries resisted even to the death every encroachment of the civil power upon the domain of conscience, now that they have become powerful and popular, depart from their ancient principles and yield their consciences into the hands of the Government? Why should they now acknowledge that which for centuries they have denied, namely, that the civil power has a right to require of them any measure of religious observance whatever? In their early history Baptists were persecuted on precisely the same grounds that seventh-day observers are now punished for refusing obedience to Sunday laws. Pedobaptist practices were entrenched in the civil laws, and it was not only heresy to practice otherwise but it was held to be destructive of social order as well, and so, not to be tolerated. The Baptists of those days were “anarchists” and “rebels” just as are those who now refuse to bow to the Sunday laws, which some Baptists advocate, and even help to make. AT the late Pittsburg Sunday Convention a good deal of capital was attempted to be made out of a statement that the so-called “Blue Laws” of Connecticut never had any existence except in the imagination of a “renegade preacher,” who, being forced to leave the Colony, returned to England, and there wrote a caricature of the colonial laws, styling them “Blue Laws.” There is probably some truth in this statement; yet it does not alter the case materially. THE significant phrase, “Blue Laws,” like “siren song,” and other expressions derived from mythology, stands, not for an historical fact, but for an idea. And so far as the moral is concerned, it would make no difference if Connecticut, as well as the laws said to have governed it, were mythical. The term, “Blue Laws,” stands for ultra paternalism in government, for unwarranted interference with personal liberty, and for laws having a Church and State cast of countenance; and hateful as the expression may be to the whole Sunday-law fraternity, they can not break its force by explaining that the story of the Blue Laws was overdrawn. THE term, “Blue Laws,” is very properly applied to statutes which interfere with the rights of conscience, and with legitimate personal liberty, whether in matters of conscience or not. All countries formerly had many such laws, and the American Colonies were no exception. The Colony of New Haven adopted the Scriptures as their code of law and government, and this was the basis of the “Blue Laws.” When we come to consider the numerous regulations and restrictions which grew up among the Jews under a similar system, it is not strange that New Haven soon had interpretations and decisions regulating the most commonplace affairs of every day life. THE National Reformers may well wish to divert attention from their principles to a discussion of unimportant facts; but as shown in the preceding notes, in this case the facts do not affect the principle. The idea of extreme paternalism is expressed in the term, “Blue Laws;” and it is likewise inseparable from National Reform and Sunday-law theories. The Sunday-law forces may pooh-pooh “Blue Laws,” but they can not escape from the fact that they are wedded to the principles so aptly caricatured by the “Blue Laws of Connecticut.” To Prevent Involuntary Servitude.
By W. H. M.
THE title of the Sunday bill for the District of Columbia, “A bill to prevent persons from being forced to labor on Sunday,” now before the House Committee on the District, is evidence of a remarkable state of affairs in the District of Columbia. If it means anything, it means that, under the direct jurisdiction of the Congress of the United States, and immediately within the view of the congressmen and senators there gathered, the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution is inoperative, and human slavery exists which this bill proposes to mitigate for one day in the week only. The proposition is preposterous, and the whole bill is no less preposterous than the reductio ad absurdum to which its title tends. The title is a misnomer; it should read, “A bill to secure and enforce by law the religious observance of Sunday.” The purpose of the measure is to secure idleness on Sunday, and there are judicial decisions which define idleness as the requisite religious observance of Sunday required by the law. That, then, is the title which the bill should carry as an expression of its intent, and also that the title and the body of the bill may be consistent with each other. For, in the bill itself, there is no suggestion that any person or corporation is forced to labor on Sunday, and the heinousness of the offense does not consist in the compulsion exercised by which some fellow-being or corporation is enslaved and compelled to labor, but the criminality rests in the act of performing labor on that day, as well as, and to the same extent with, the employment of labor. The purpose of the act, then, is not to free the slave, and punish the slave-master, but to punish the slave for being a slave. The title of the bill virtually recites that there are persons in the District of Columbia who are slaves, “forced to labor,” and the bill fixes a penalty of not more than one hundred dollars to be laid upon the slave because of his slavery, and upon due conviction of such a condition of servitude. The bill, then, is inconsistent with its title, and it is not its purpose to free any person or corporation from a condition of servitude. The title is a pretense, unworthy the professed character of those who framed the bill and are doing their best to promote its passage, and a slur upon the intelligence of the representative who introduced it. More than that, what can be the views of human justice held by those who can propose to the highest legislative body in the land a measure by which Jewish or Mohammedan slave-masters shall be empowered to enslave men and corporations within the District of Columbia. For any person, in fact, whether he professes the creed of the Jew, the Mohammedan, the Presbyterian, the Methodist, the Congregationalist, the Unitarian, or any denomination or religious sect, or none whatever,—only so long as he professes and practices the observance of some other day of the week than Sunday as a day of rest,—may, legally, without let or hindrance, enforce upon his fellow-men and corporations this condition of servitude which exists in the District of Columbia, and go scot free; because the bill recites “that the provisions of this act shall not be construed to apply to any person or persons who conscientiously believe in and observe any other day of the week than Sunday as a day of rest.” It is not human slavery which this act proposes to do away with. The enslavement of man by his fellow-men is criminal. It is not criminality which it is proposed shall be dealt with in this measure. For if it were, would it be sound legislation to decree that one class of people may commit a certain crime, for the commission of which another class shall be mulcted in a heavy fine? That which is a crime as between A and B is also a crime as between B and A. If not, it is not a crime at all. And that is the solution of this whole bill, it deals with no crime whatever. What, then, does it propose to deal with? It proposes to deal with an act which some religionists consider to be a sin against God, an infraction of his moral law, in laboring upon the first day of the week. Such being the case, by what right does any one ask the Congress of the United States to give its sanction to any individual interpretation of the law of God? And that being answered, it is not necessary to ask by what right the Congress of the United States shall attempt the enforcement of any interpretation of the moral law of God. What Is Proper Sabbath Observance?
By W. A. COLCORD
SAYS the Michigan Sabbath Watchman:— The Sabbath rightly observed would prove a source of great good to the people of this Nation. Granted; and a blessing to the people of all other nations as well. But what is proper Sabbath observance? This statement of the Watchman can be of no practical value unless we can ascertain what proper observance of the Sabbath is. How must the Sabbath be kept in order to be “rightly observed,” and thus prove a blessing to him who observes it? Only he who made it and gave character to the Sabbath day is competent to answer this question; and this he has done. God says, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Only when the Sabbath is thus kept, only when it is observed as a day which is “sacred; reserved from profane or common use;” as a day “set apart to the service or worship of God,”—as the term holy is defined to mean,—is it rightly observed. The right observance of the day is, therefore, to devote it to God and to his worship. This and this only, is either proper or profitable Sabbath observance. But this stamps both the institution and its proper observance as religious, and religious wholly; for religion is “the recognition of God as an object of worship, love, and obedience.” Any law, therefore, looking toward the proper observance of the Sabbath is a religious law, and the enforcement of it is the enforcement of a religious observance. Sabbath laws are, therefore, religious laws, and nothing else; and the enforcement of them is simply an attempt to make men religious by law. These conclusions are unavoidable, allowing God to say what the right observance of the Sabbath is, and words to have their common and accepted meaning. But, although the attempt can be made, men can not be made religious by law, and the attempt is not only futile but wicked. The most that law can do toward making men religious is, in view of certain pains and penalties, to exact an outward conformity to certain religious rites and ceremonies. And this is all that any Sunday law, or any effort to secure Sunday laws, and enforce Sunday observance by law can ever accomplish. The friends of such laws bear witness to the truthfulness of this fact themselves. A writer in the Christian Statesman of Dec. 25, 1891, refers to the work of the Pittsburg Law and Order League as having given “unmistakable signs of success in reducing crime and vice, and especially in procuring a better outward observance of the Sabbath.” (Italics mine.) And this is as good Sabbath observance as any Sunday law, or Law and Order League, can ever secure; simply an outward observance. But this without the inward grace is hypocrisy. Said Jesus, “God is a spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” No other kind of worship is acceptable to God, and no other form of Sabbath keeping than that holy, spiritual, religious observance of the day is Sabbath keeping in his sight. Therefore all such Sabbath observance as comes from the Pennsylvania Sunday law, backed up by the Pittsburg Law and Order League, makes the one who renders it no better, nor any more a Sabbath-keeper, in God’s sight. In fact it would be better for him not to render it, for there is some reason for believing that God has more respect for an honest sinner than for a hypocritical saint. The whole Sunday-law movement is therefore nothing more nor less than an effort to make men hypocrites, and persecute all who will not act the hypocrite and worship God after its hypocritical fashion. The promoters of it may secure millions of convictions under Sunday laws, but they can never by such means convert a soul. Away with the wicked and hypocritical thing! W. A. COLCORD. Getting Very Strict in Atlanta.
By A. O. Tait
A CORRESPONDENT from Marietta, Ga., writes that some trainmen on the Georgia Division of the East Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia Railroad, were delayed, owing to a break-down on their train, and did not reach Atlanta until 8 A. M., Sunday morning. The great zeal in Atlanta for Sunday that is now becoming quite famous, could not countenance break-downs that would delay trains and cause them to come into their city on Sunday, and so the men were arrested, and the case is decided against them. The railroad officials are talking of carrying the case to the Supreme Court, to see if the decision will be sustained. Some will say that such things as this can not be general; but arrests for the violation of Sunday laws quite as ridiculous are being made right along in Pennsylvania, and are being strongly urged in other portions of the country. These facts should open the eyes of those who are favoring legislation that makes it possible for such arrests to be made. A person123does not need much discernment to see in this a repetition of what was seen in Scotland, and in the New England States in the early history of this country, when men were compelled to attend church and appear very religious on Sunday. People have the right to attend church and to observe Sunday strictly if they desire, and they should be protected in that right, but there the matter should end. They should not be allowed to compel others to submit to their ideas of religion, and observe their tenets of faith, whether they have any conviction in the matter or not. The history of the past should be sufficient to prove to every candid individual that the interests of religion and morality can not be advanced by such legislation that will thus enable a few hypocritical bigots to annoy citizens who do not agree with them in all of their ideas. Congressional Hearings.
By W. H. M.
The World's Fair Committee of the House has lately granted three different hearings on the question of closing the World's Fair on Sunday. At the first hearing, on April 5, there were present eight members of the Committee; a delegation, representing the American Sabbath Union and National Reform Association, which desired to be heard in advocacy of some congressional action to secure the Sunday closing of the Exposition; and representatives of the National Religious Liberty Association, and THE AMERICAN SENTINEL, who asked the privilege of opposing any action by Congress looking to that end. The advocates of Sunday closing had a grievance to begin with in the presence of any opponents, and Elliott F. Shepard, who led the delegation, strenuously opposed the granting of any of the time of the Committee to the hearing of other views than those of himself and coadjutors. But, as Allen Moon, representing the National Religious Liberty Association, had previously arranged with the chairman of the Committee for an opportunity for the Association to be heard, Mr. Shepard's objection was overruled and the time was allotted to four speakers, three in favor of Sunday closing of the Exposition by some act of Congress, and one to oppose the recommendation of any such measure to Congress; fifteen minutes' time was granted each speaker. Mr. Shepard was displeased at the absence of some of the Committee, and so expressed himself, but Mr. Durborow, the chairman, reminded him that he was “addressing the whole country,” and requested him to proceed. After introducing himself as representing the American Sabbath Union and dwelling upon the numbers and influence of that and kindred organizations, Mr. Shepard made a plea for Sunday observance in general, and its enforcement at the World's Fair in particular, on the ground that this is a “Christian Nation,” and making extensive citations in support of this from the opinion of Mr. Justice Brewer, given in the case of the Rector, etc., of the Church of the Holy Trinity, New York, vs. the United States. Before Mr. Shepard seemed to have fairly begun, however, much to his apparent chagrin, time was called on him and he was obliged to give way to the next speaker. Rev. Dr. Knowles, of New York City, followed, and while he disclaimed the intention of making a religious plea, and expressed himself as desiring to ask legislation upon civil grounds entirely, the only civil basis upon which he relied was the many precedents, which he quoted, of religious legislation by the civil authorities in different States, and the expression of a wish by so many petitioners that the same course should be continued by the Congress of the United States. He said that while Mr. Shepard had been emphasizing the religious side of the question it still had the side of the citizen, and that what they wanted was the maintenance of the American Sabbath as the enforcement of its observance is provided for in the laws of the country. He asked the Committee to favor such measures as would tend to the closing of the World's Fair on Sunday, because Sunday closing would be in harmony with the history in that regard of all previous expositions; also in harmony with our Sunday laws, and what he thought was the spirit of our Government from the beginning; also, because it would be in harmony with the world-wide movement now in progress to secure the enforcement of a rest day; and finally because it was in harmony with God's law. Mr. Knowles spoke of having spent three weeks at Albany, in attendance upon the Legislature, and quoted the action taken there. In response to a query from Mr. Caruth, a member of the Committee, as to whether New York alone had directed the closing of its exhibit on Sunday, Mr. Knowles replied that while that was so, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Ohio had passed resolutions favoring Sunday closing by the management. Out of seven Legislatures to which the question had been presented the past winter but one, that of Iowa, had refused to recommend Sunday closing. Mr. Knowles was asked if he thought the attaching of a provision conditioning an appropriation on Sunday-closing would be sufficient to attain this end; he answered that he thought any expression from Congress favoring closing on Sunday would cause the gates to be closed. G. E. Fifield, of Massachusetts, then addressed the Committee in behalf of the National Religious Liberty Association, and said that he did not appear before them either to affirm or to deny that exhibits at the World's Fair should be closed on Sunday, but to deny the right of Congress to touch this as a religious question. He then showed from the statements of Mr. Shepard and Mr. Knowles that it was a question of religion, and being so he claimed that it was outside the jurisdiction of Congress. The measure was uncivil and unchristian as well. Rev. H. H. George followed in behalf of the American Sabbath Union. He reasoned that this country can not exist without a rest day, and as no petitions have been presented against the closing of the World's Fair on Sunday, therefore Congress must undertake to shut its gates on that day. As the representatives of the American Sabbath Union felt that they had been unable to present their case, the Committee agreed to continue the hearing the following day. After the adjournment of the Committee meeting the American Sabbath Union held an impromptu executive session right there, and determined that they would not tolerate the presentation of any opposing views at the hearing of the next day. At the assembling of the Committee, at the appointed hour on the following day, Mr. Shepard made a positive demand for the entire time. Mr. Moon, in behalf of the representatives of the National Religious Liberty Association, and THE AMERICAN SENTINEL, present, and wishing to be heard, said that he merely desired to insist upon an equal right to a hearing, but that when that should be granted was entirely at the discretion and convenience of the Committee. It was decided that still another hearing should be had on the following day, at which the views of those who opposed congressional action on this subject might be presented. Rev. Mr. Ramsdell, of the District of Columbia, then continued for the Sabbath Union, and presented the following provision for insertion in the appropriating clause of the World's Fair Appropriation bill:— Provided, however, that no part of the sum appropriated by this section shall be paid until the corporation organized under the laws of the State of Illinois, known as “The World's Exposition of Eighteen Hundred and Ninety-two,” and said World's Columbian Commission, shall stipulate in writing that the said Exposition shall not be opened to the public on Sundays. Mr. Ramsdell took the position that he, and some others, demanded that any exposition supported in the slightest degree from money taken from them by taxation should be closed on Sundays, forgetting that on no other plea than a religious conviction could such a stand as that be taken, and that therefore his own plea took the matter out of the jurisdiction of Congress. The only other point presented by this gentleman was all that was asked in the case was the insertion of “Sundays excepted;” no more, no less, than in the Constitution. Forgetting again that “Sundays excepted” in the Constitution is a simple recognition of an inherent right of an individual, while the provision asked for is a positive prohibition of the exercise of inherent rights by many millions of individuals. Rev. A. W. Pitzer, of Washington City, then poured the oil of a peaceful disposition on the troubled sea of discussion. He thought that controversy should be avoided. Whether the measure proposed was good or bad legislation, and whether it was constitutional the Committee could decide. But the petitions of ten millions of people ought to be respected. Rev. T. A. Fernley, of Philadelphia, followed. He thought this the greatest question ever brought before the American people, for in it rested the protection of American institutions. He assured the Committee that they, as congressmen, were sent to represent Christianity in the councils of the Nation. Rev. Dr. Atherton continued the presentation of similar views, as a representative of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, containing seventy-two churches, with a membership of thirty-two thousand communicants. Elliott F. Shepard, of New York, then occupied the remainder of the time in the reading of a brief, with occasional comment. Mr. Shepard's brief began with the statement that “The Christian sentiment of the country desires to have introduced into H. R. Bill No. 6593, or any bill which may take its place, the proviso that the Columbian Exhibition shall not be opened to the public on Sundays.” The different points offered were “1. Such a proviso is constitutional. 2. It is expedient for Congress124to adopt it. 3. It will contribute to the orderly conduct of the whole Exhibition, and to the health and morals of those attending. 4. It will aid to its financial success and bless the working-man 5. It is demanded by the Christian and the patriotic sentiment of the country. 6. It will honor God and preserve the faith of the Nation. 7. It will teach visiting nations the way of happiness.” These different positions were supported by quotations, mainly of religious precedents, opinions, and statistics. AGAIN, the next day, the Committee came together to hear the views of those who denied the propriety of any legislation which should have for its purpose the closing of the World's Fair on Sunday. The committee room was filled, though but one of the representatives of the affirmative was present. A larger number of congressmen were in attendance than on either of the previous days. Those who addressed the Committee were Allen Moon, of Chicago; W. H. McKee, of New York; G. E. Fifield, of Massachusetts, and Lewis Abrahams, a lawyer of the city of Washington. The points made, and the positions taken, either have been, or will be, so fully presented in THE SENTINEL that it is not necessary to make any statement of them here; it would be unavoidably imperfect because of the required brevity. At the same hour in which this hearing was held, the same matter was under discussion in the meeting of the World's Columbian Commission, in session in the city of Chicago. At this meeting it was determined to lay aside the discussion and decision of this question until the second day of the next session of the National Commission, in October. The number of separate petitions received for Sunday closing was given as two thousand, seven hundred and twenty-five, but the number of individual petitioners was not stated. They came from every State in the Union. The Secretary was instructed to have printed, for distribution at the next session of the Commission, a list of the petitions, both for and against Sunday closing, with a statement of the number of petitions on each separate list, and the name of the organization from which the petition comes. The evidences are that the settlement of this question will be left with the local management, where it properly belongs. Another Congressional Hearing.
By W. H. M.
On Tuesday, April 12, the House Committee on the Judiciary granted a hearing to representatives of the National League for the Preservation of American Institutions upon petitions and a memorial presented, in behalf of the League, in the House, by Mr. Springer of Illinois. The petitions pray “for the passage of a constitutional amendment forbidding the use of public money, or credit, for the purpose of founding, maintaining, or aiding any church, religious denomination, or religious society, or any institution, society, or undertaking which is wholly or in part under sectarian or ecclesiastical control.” The constitutional amendment offered proposes to extend to each State the terms of restriction as to laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and applicable to Congress, coupling with that the specifications of the petition. Rev. J. M. King, Secretary of the League, first addressed the Committee. Mr. King discussed the standing of the League as comprising within its membership the intellect, wealth, and influence of the country, and said that it had already two hundred local secretaries throughout the United States. Twenty-one States, Mr. King said, have already clauses in their Constitutions forbidding appropriations for sectarian purposes. It was claimed that the purpose of the League, was to eliminate religious questions from politics; and secure the complete separation of Church and State; that it was neither anti-Roman Catholic, anti-Protestant, nor anti-Judaic, but that these all were with them; yet a question from Mr. Oates, of Alabama, drew out that the great danger feared was apparent only in the encroachments of the Roman Catholics in New York and Minnesota. Wm. Allen Butler, of the law committee of the League, followed Mr. King; he said that what was asked was but a logical expression of the First Amendment to the Constitution applied to the States. The division between Church and State is one of the first and fundamental principles of this American Government. Yet he defended the exemption of ministers, churches, and religious charities from taxation. Mr. Culberson asked if Congress did not make appropriations every year for church charities in the District of Columbia, and for church schools among the Indians. Mr. Butler replied that if they did it was contrary to the First Amendment to the Constitution. Several questions were then asked tending to show that members of the Committee looked upon the amendment, asked for, as being calculated to inaugurate a restrictive constitutional policy instead of leaving each State to be governed only by the general principles of the Constitution and free to establish its own special restrictions. After the close of the hearing Mr. King was asked that if the intent of the restriction of the First Amendment upon the Congress of the United States was extended to the different States why the principle embodied would not require the repeal of all laws bearing on religion, such as the requirement of the belief in a God as a qualification to testify as a witness, laws against blasphemy, and laws requiring Sunday observance. He replied that it would not do that because it was specialized entirely upon the matter of the appropriation of money for sectarian purposes. The purpose of this League is then not the separation of Church and State but the concentration of the forces of a religion into a more complete union with the centralized power of the State and an elimination of disturbing elements. Wherein Is the Difference?
THE Ohio Legislature has passed a law prohibiting shaving on Sunday, and the penalty for its violation is very severe. During the debate on the bill, according to the correspondent of the Commercial Gazette: Mr. Marshall excited much laughter by offering an amendment proposing to make it unlawful to shine shoes on Sunday. This, of course, was lost. “Why, ‘of course’? Shaving requires manual labor done for a consideration, and so does the work of the bootblack. A shave is as necessary to comfort and decency as polished shoes. Verily, let Legislatures be commended for fine spun distinctions where there is no difference! Kentucky Journal. They Are “Instructed” to Close the Fair.
By W. E. Cornell
It begins to look as though the work of no association, convention or general public gathering of any sort was considered complete without a resolution favoring the closing of the World's Fair on Sunday. About every possible reason that the mind of man could invent has been assigned as an excuse for the proposed step, even to the fact that the hogs on exhibition should have one day of rest in seven so that they may show to better advantage. It can hardly be believed that a resolution of this nature would be seriously entertained by any body of men. Yet such an one was actually passed by the American Swine Breeders’ Association, and a similar one finds itself in company with others passed by a stock breeders’ meeting in Illinois. The latest comes from the Southeast Nebraska Teachers’ Association, held at Tecumseh, Neb., a week since, and reads as follows:— WHEREAS, We as educators should represent and reflect the highest moral sentiment of the country, and WHEREAS, There exists a discussion relating to the Sunday-closing of the World's Fair in 1893; therefore, be it Resolved, That we instruct the Commissioners to close the World's Fair on Sunday. Why is it that these would-be legal guardians of Sunday sacredness do not know that what they ask is wholly outside the jurisdiction of the Columbian Commission and contrary to the spirit of the National Constitution? So also are the memorials from the various State Legislatures to the Commission to close the gates of the Exposition on Sunday, without jurisdiction. So clearly was this point brought out in the late hearing by Mr. Jones, before the Iowa Legislative Committee, that several who had been avowedly in favor of the memorial confessed their change of sentiment. But aside from the authority vested in the commission to act according to the various instructions, wherein is the Southeast Nebraska Teachers’ Association clothed with power to “instruct the Commissioners to close the World's Fair on Sunday?” To say the least, the resolution displays a monumental exhibition of ignorance—an ignorance that clearly demonstrates that the “power behind the throne” is not the teachers themselves, but an outside influence that has led them to commit themselves to a question whose real nature they do not understand. The question of closing the gates of the Fair on Sunday is a religious question. It is confessedly in the interests of religion; was first introduced by religionists, and its agitation is backed by religious people, who in their blind zeal can see nothing before our Republic but utter ruin unless it incorporates in the body of its Constitution a recognition of Christ as the ruler of nations. W. E. CORNELL.
Des Moines, Iowa.