zens of the United States. Of the Knights of Labor, the indorsement of whose international convention stands third, at least two hundred nineteen thousand citizens of the United States. The Presbyterian General Assembly, North, whose action stands next, had at the time of the indorsement seven hundred twenty-two thousand seventy-one members. The convention of Christian Workers, whose indorsement is next, had four hundred fifty present when the unanimous vote of indorsement was taken. The Woman's Christian Temperance Union, which comes next, had one hundred eighty-five thousand five hundred twentyone at the time of the vote. The Roman Catholics, for whom Cardinal Gibbons speaks, number seven million two hundred thousand." From this official analysis it appears that of the alleged fourteen million one hundred seventy-four thousand three hundred thirty-seven signatures to the Sunday-law petitions, only four hundred seven were actual signatures. And of the "representative signatures," seven million two hundred thousand (over one-half) no one had any authority whatever to present, as is proved by the following letter from Cardinal Gibbons: "CARDINAL'S RESIDENCE, 408 NORTH CHARLES STREET, Į Further analysis. Second letter of Cardinal Had no intention to "MY DEAR SIR: In reply to your favor dated February 25, 1889, duly received, his Eminence Cardinal Gibbons desires me to write to Gibbons. 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 pledge others. 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 seven million two hundred thousand Catholics as indorsing the bill.' "I have the honor to remain, with much respect, yours faithfully, "J. P. DONAHUE, Chancellor. "To D. E. LINDSEY, ESQ., 708 Rayner Avenue, Baltimore, Md.” That a large part of the Knights of Labor are also opposed to Sunday legislation is proved by the following speech of Master Workman Millard F. Hobbs, of the District of Columbia, who appeared before the House Committee on the District of Columbia, at a hearing held at Washington, February 18, 1890: An incorrect assumption. Many Knights of Labor also oppose Sunday legislation. Address of a Master I want to Workman. "MR. HOBBS: I occupy, at the present time, the position of chief officer of the Knights of Labor in the District of Columbia. deny that the Knights of Labor have authorized anybody to speak for them in this particular matter. "Mr. Crafts came before the Federation of Labor, and argued this bill, and that body refused to indorse the bill. He came before the District Assembly of the Knights of Labor (which is made up of all the Knights of Labor of the Assemblies of the District of Columbia), and that body has refused to indorse it. There are parties in that body who believe in the bill as it is; others believe in a certain portion of it, and others are wholly opposed to it; and the Knights of Labor, as a whole, have thought best not to have anything to do with it. Every Knight of Labor is in favor of a day of rest; — some of them believe they ought to have two days of rest. I believe they are all in favor of the rest feature of the bill, but, on account of what is called the religious feature of the bill, they are opposed to it. "MR. SCHULTEIS: I am a duly elected member of the legislative committee, but I deny that you are a member of that committee, or have any right to talk in this meeting, or have been authorized by any meeting — 'Mr. Crafts: Of the Knights of Labor. Mr. Schulteis has a right to be heard here. "MR. HOBBS: Mr. Schulteis's credentials merely show that he is a member of the District Committee on Labor Legislation, and Mr. Schulteis himself is in favor of the bill, and he is a member of that committee; but the balance of that committee have unanimously signed a petition against this bill. Now District Assembly 66 of the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction of all local assemblies in this community, and (with the exception of one local assembly) they have resolved not to do anything with this measure, claiming that they can best satisfy the members of the local assemblies in the District in this way. They do not believe in working on Sunday, but as for the other feature of the bill, they think it is best not to appear here in favor of it; and I believe there is quite a lot of the members of the order who believe that if they want rest on Sunday, or any other day, they can get it through their labor organizations, and that it is best not to try to get it through Congress by a sort of church movement. "There are over thirty unions of Knights of Labor, and there has been only one petition sent here. They have remained silent upon this subject, and I think they want to remain silent upon it. "Mr. Schulteis denies my right to speak here; but any one who belongs to the organization knows that I have a right to speak without credentials." So, also, some of the members of the Methodist and Presbyterian churches, Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and others, who were counted as "petitioning" for the enactment of a Sunday-rest bill, under the head of "representative signatures," are known to be opposed to Sunday legislation, many of them having signed the counter-petition. How extensive this class is that have been represented to Congress as petitioning for Sunday laws when it was without their consent and directly contrary to their principles and desires, it is impossible to determine. Mr. Chambers disagreed with the gentleman from Maine, that ordering a large number would imply any assent to the principles adopted in the report. Neither did he agree with the gentleman from Kentucky, that the adoption of the measure prayed for would have a bad tendency, and that legislation upon the subject would be improper. Some had asserted that this measure did tend to unite religious with our political institutions, and others had asserted that such would not be the result. The petitioners took an entirely different ground. They said that the observance of the Sabbath was connected with the civil interest of the government. He did not mean to be understood, however, as having formed any opinion upon the subject. Mr. Johnson said he would state, in justice to himself, that he believed the petitioners were governed by the purest motives; but if the gentleman from Maryland would look at the proceedings of a meeting at Salem, in Massachusetts, he would find it did not matter what was the purity of the motive; that the petitioners did not consider the ground they had taken as being purely that the Sabbath was a day of rest; they assumed that it was such by a law of God.1 Now some denominations considered one 1 In the later Sunday agitations, this is a very prominent characteristic of the movement. In the speeches delivered in their conventions, the "sin of the national violation of the law of God," "the displeasure of God because we trample his Sabbath under foot," "breaking up the churches by pleasure going, Sunday amusements, newspapers," etc., etc., is dwelt upon at length; and sometimes they even go so far as to oppose the so-called “civil Sabbath" theory, and demand a law to enforce Sunday rest, and to "promote its observance as a day of religious worship." But they generally appear before our law-making bodies in a very different way, as is strikingly illustrated by the following extract from an open letter of the leading apostle of religious legislation on the Pacific Coast, dated at Oakland, California, February 19, 1890: "... You may notice how cautious we have to be in the wording of this petition, for as we have no State law recognizing the Difference of opinion on of the day. Petitioners call upon Congress to settle the law of God. day the most sacred, and some looked to another, the sacredness and these petitions did, in fact, call upon Congress to settle what was the law of God. The committee had framed their report upon policy and expediency. First step in It was but the first step taken, that they were to religious legislation. legislate upon religious grounds, and it made no sort of difference which was the day asked to be set apart, which day was to be considered sacred, whether it was the first day or the seventh, the principle was wrong. It was upon this ground that the committee went in making their report. The principle is wrong. Reading of report called for. Necessity of resorting to the "civil" Sabbath argument. Senator Blair also endeavors to cover up the religious phase of his bills. An appropriate script ure. Religion the basis generally for Sunday legislation. Rest it on the divine commandment. Mr. Rowan called for the reading of the report, which was read. Sabbath day, we have no hope of closing the saloon on that day except as a municipal and police arrangement in the interest of sobriety, morality, law, and order. If we would undertake to close the saloons because the Sabbath is a day sacred by divine authority, we would be met at once, both by the council and by the courts, with the declaration: The State of California knows no religious Sabbath- no Sunday except a holiday. Thus we would be defeated at the very beginning. As yet we hardly dare to be hopeful of success, but the Lord of the Sabbath is supreme in California as elsewhere. By his blessing we shall succeed. May we not hope for the prayers of the friends of temperance and of the Sabbath?" "Christian Statesman," March 13. Another point of interest is that Senator Blair, before re-introducing his Sunday bill and constitutional amendment, December 9, 1889, studiously eliminated the prominent expressions showing its religious nature, but left the effects of his bills the same. They seem to forget that a wolf in a sheep's clothing is none the less a wolf, and that the Scripture saith: "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." It is only as a last resort that the "civil" Sabbath argument is taken up. In general, both the supporters and opponents of Sunday legislation, rest it on the same foundation that it is religious legislation. Elliott F. Shepard, former publisher of the New York “Mail and Express," and president of the American Sabbath Union, declared: "We do not rest this work on mere human reasoning; we rest it wholly and directly on the divine commandment." Rev. J. H. Knowles, editor of the "Pearl of Days," the official organ of the American Sabbath Union, said: "It will become more and more apparent that the real defenders of the day are those who regard it as a divine, not merely a human, institution." 20TH CONGRESS] [2D SESSION Jan. 19, 1829. SENATE REPORT ON SUNDAY MAILS.' COMMUNICATED TO THE SENATE, JANUARY 19, 1829. 2 Mr. Johnson of Kentucky, made the following report: Report of Senate com "The committee to whom were referred the several petitions on the subject of mails on the mittee. Sabbath, or first day of the week, report: 1" American State Papers," Class VII, page 225. * Richard M. Johnson was a representative statesman of the times. He commenced his public career in the legislature of Kentucky, at only twenty-three years of age. His public life is summed up by Lanman, in his "Dictionary of the United States Congress," as follows: "He was born in Kentucky in 1780, and died at Frankfort, November 19, 1850. In 1807 he was chosen a representative in Congress from Kentucky, which post he held until 1813. In 1813 he raised a volunteer regiment of cavalry of one thousand men to fight the British and Indians on the Lakes, and during the campaign that followed, served with great credit, under General Harrison, as a colonel of that regiment. He greatly distinguished himself at the Battle of the Thames, and the chief Tecumseh is said to have been killed by his hand. In 1814, he was appointed Indian commissioner by President Madison. He was again a representative in Congress from 1813 to 1819. In 1819 he went from the House into the United States Senate, to fill an unexpired term; was re-elected, and served as Senator until 1829. He was reelected to the House, and served there until 1837, when he became Vice-President, and as such presided over the Senate. At the time of his death he was a member of the Kentucky Legislature, and he died from a second attack of paralysis. He was a kind-hearted, courageous, and talented man." Pages 211, 212. As evidence of the high regard which the nation had for him, we insert the following resolution of the first session of the fifteenth Congress of the United States: "RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES Senator representative Johnson a statesman. Biographical sketch. His bravery in battle. Elected to the vice presidency. His character. Resolution requesting the President Present Mr. Johnson a sword for his bravery. |