The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1869-12-13

We are gratified to see the Courier
manifest a disposition to "go back F"
on the position it took in favor of the
abrogation Of all Sunday laws. 1t
has heard, no doubt, from some good
Democrats, who are not prepared to
inaugurate in our city the opinions
and practices Of the French Revolu-
tionists of 1892. In yesterdays Cou-
qIer We find the following paragraph:
We have never said that we were OPP
posed to all Sunday lava but we have
said, and believe, that the sanctIty OF the
Sabbath can be properly maintained by
general laws, which viii protect society
under all circumstances and on every day
of the week."
The question we propounded to the
Courier was this:
"Are you in favor OF repeating ali laws
which recognizes and are designed to per-
petuate, Sunday as q DISTINCT DAY for
religious Observance and rest, thereby
placing It on level with the other six
days of the week?"
To this interrogatory the Courier of
December 9th replied emphatically as
follows:
We aoaan no other Sunday Laaos
than such as.loiu protect religious as :
Senlblies from annoyance a1bite engaged
ts deU0ti0ndL eCercises.
IF this declaration is not square
announcement of hostility to all laws
recognizing Sunday as a Distinct
Day +" for religious observance and
rest, the English language is incapa-
BILE of expressing such hostility. But,
apparently not content with the above
declaration of hostility to all Sunday
Laws, in the same article the Courier
uses this emphatic language:
- No special Statutes should be made
an .fIvor Of Sunday more than any
other dag"
What do these words mean but OPP
position to all Sunday laws? Does
the Courier use words without any
conception of their meaning?
In regard to our challenge that the
Democratic party Of this city, county
and state would not dare to pass a
resolution at their various conven-
tions IN favor of the repeal of all
Sunday laws, the Courier tacitly ad-
mits that it will not, but says: We
will see to it that resolutions are
passed in our local conventions
against the law now in existence, un-
der which men are fined for selling
beer and liquors on the Sabbath
day." Why in Local and not in STATE
conventions? What good will such
resolution do, unless it is adopted
by the party Of the state in State
Convention assembled2 We dare
the Democratic State Gonvention to
pass resolution making liquor deal
ers the only exception to the Sunday
laws. Mr.. Whittlesey will not, we
again repeat, dare to present such a
resolution for the consideration of the
9Th of January Convention.
In the discussion of this question
the Courier seems to forget one or two
important points.
1t is just as much violation of the
law to sell intoxicating liquors during
the day of any state. county, or city
election as on Sunday. Why, Their,
should the law be any more de-
nouneed as a Sunday" than as an
Election Day" Law2 Will the
Courier inform US? Are the quiet
and peace of election days any more
desirable than to have quiet and
peace on Sunday?
The Courier asks: docs the
JOURNAL believe it to be a crime to
sell glass of beer on Sunday?" We
answer. No more and no LESS a crime
than to sell any other article whose
sale iscontrary 10 law. We endorse