, 1866-02-14
THE SUNDAY PAPER QUESTION.

THE SUNDAY PAPER QUESTION.
we recently published an article upon the
mornl questions involved In the publication Of
our sunday edition of the TRIBUNE. We
therein showed that those who desire us to
suppress TINT paper, however pure may be
theF motives, hze really, though ignorautly,
engaged IN work Of mischief as the only
effect Of their SUCCESS would be to add ten or
twelve Thousand to the circulation Of the
sunday Iisnes, and some twenty Thousand
dollars = year to its poprietors, or to cause
The publication Of several Sunday papers Of
an immoral and injurious character. Those
who oppose our Sunday paper are not prncti-
cal newspaper publishers, and they therefore
suppose the question at issue to be whether
there shall be some paper or no paper pub.
lshed tn Chicago on Sunday, We, however,
know that the real question Is whether a
good paper or bad paper shall be read by
from twelve to twenty Thousand Of our peo-
pie on Sunday. They suppose they are doing
God service. We know they are doing the
Chicago 1tnes service. They suppose the
standard Of religion win be raised higher BY
surpresstng our Sunday edition. We know
1t Will he sunk lower.
The article to which We refer caused certatn
Of our most esteemed clergymcn to concede
that they had not previously weighed both
sides Of the question, and that there was
much truth In Our position. II was repub-
lBhed, with editorial Endorsement, by The Ctn~
cinnati Commercial and the Philadelphia Press,
both Of them leading journals controlled by
Christian gentlemen OF high moral tone and
responsibility. II expresses fully our views
and thoee OF other journals, addressing In the
aggregate quarter Of million Of readers,
upon the moral aspects involved in our Sum-
day paper, and until our reverend friends aud
spiritual advisers show US that they are un-
| eound, We shall regard their views on the
question Of the right and wrong Of our Sun
day paper as unfounded and their advice ~
gratuitous.
In the recent meeting Of the Evangelical
Ministerial Union, the question was not put
80 much on noral ~ upon religions grounds
This makes II proper for Us to discuss the re
licious aspects Of the question. We selec
the following from the remarks Of Rev. Dr.
Junkin, as cmbodymg the religious Views o
the clergymcn present on the subject:
.'If we do yiolate good taste, have not they VIC
Lated Gods lawf In approaching men xho ha1
the bad thste 10 violate eTefy Law upon which II
| QCpE00o+ NE 1AVUAA AVt 1VVA SN GASeCAy 9
whst b1oiberr call good tasle. i would not ca]
thcm '.ye generation Of Etpcfs," DoE generation
Of rhaiisees and hyPocrlies; it might be oul G
good taste, thoneh One better tnan us all use
tsose words But ne must leasn 10 call thines b
their right nanes, Or we viii never get on In ihi
reGelt!ous community"
No one can fall to be struck with the mod
esty with which Dr.. Junkin ndmits in a
a1semblagc so eminent for their piety IS tha
he addressed, that "Christ Is better than Il
all" And it does seem logical that ii Ton
| better than themselves" ever applied th
terms generation OF vipers to any body,
would be entirely e1cnsablc, nay, meritc
rious, for DR.. Junkin to apply those terms t
the editors ofthe TRIBuSE- Had he done &c
We should hare been largely consoled by th
fact that those 10 whom Christ applied thos
terms, stood in the same relation to him a
the Rev. DR.. Junkin does to Us, viz: that {
Sabbstazians, accusing Christ OF violating th
snnctity Of Gods law, relative to the Sabhat