The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-01-29
Communicated 7
The SundaY.EiGuOr What
bishop kcane and Dr. Hawthorne
Think about Selling Liquor ON Sum
day-Somc Reasons why the Law
Should not be Changed.

! Mes>Ts. EditorS.-The barkeeperS OF
Richmond are the only class in our city
who seem TO be restve under the law which
forbidS all men from pursuing their OIdi-
nary avOcatlOnS on Sunday, and in their ef-
fOIts TO break through these restraints they
raise the cry Of religious persecution. and
endeavor TO misead the ignorant and m
thinking by declaring that their religious
freedom j. threatened. Strange that the
Only men who have no religion should he
those whose religious freedom is most
hampcred by these laws, and that whilst
Protestants and Catholics alike unite in
cOndemning in the most unmeasured terms
the practices sought TO be INDUCED in by
these men as Subyersive OF the highest in
tereStS OF morality and religion, they should
seek the c0unlenance OF the law for their
IeXercise.
The Catholics aud Baptists contest with
each other the right 10 the championship OF
religious freedom i'm this country, and they
ought therefore to know something OF its
meaning. | would therefore call atten-
ton TO what two Of the most illusrOus
Representatives in this city OF these
Churches have 10 say on this subject
Bishop Keane, the honOred and hIghly-giit-
ed representative Of his people, in his late
pastoral letter to the clergy OF this diocese,
SAYS
"The desecration of the Lords day is
one of the most scandalous evidences Of the
anti-religIOUs spirit, wherever it exists. and
one Of the most etficacious means made use
Of by Intdel dcmagoeues and goddess gov
ernments abroad for DESTROYING the spirit
Of religion among the people
"Siill more earnestly do we insist that
Inothine should be tolerated which would
be i'm any way a prOfaEatiOn OF the Lords
day. And especially do we denounce. and
most positively forbid, the dCtestable pTac-
tice, should it anywhere exist among our
Catholic people (Which God f0rbidl. of sell
ing LIQUOR on Sunday--a practice contrary
alike TO the law OF God and the law OF the
State, and which leads to cOustless desc
eratiOns OF the Lords day. To the eXtir-
patton OF this practice, wherever it may
exist, the clergy will please direct their
best endeavoTS. And knowing that not
only the desecratiOn OF the Lords day,
but, as the Fathers OF the Second Plenary
Council have well said In. 400, the worst
scandals OF every kind are ordinarily the
result OF indulgence in intoxicating drinks,
we, I'm the words of the same Council, eX-
hort pastors, and beseech them for the love
Of Jesus Christ, to use every endeavor for
the eXtiTpatlon OF the vice OF drunken
ness"
Rev. ]. Z. Hawthorne, u, D., pastor Of
our wealtie>t and most influential Baptist
church. and himself distinguished and
E uncompromising Baptist, writes rs fol-
lows:
"The Sabbath was not ordained by No
ses. 1t is as old as the creation OF man.
The reasons for it are 10 be found in the
constitution of man. To oppose the Sab
bath is simply TO war against nature. The
present movement 10 overthrow it by con-
yerting it into day Of revelry and diSsipa-
ton is only a repetition Of the experiment
once made by the inidel Jacobins Of France.
The success OF such movement would
deluge our land with wee, and insure the
triumph OF all that is most hateful and n-
: famous in the philosophy OF Robert Inger-
soil and his cOnfederates."
Now, I submit that if this was question
Of religious freedom surely these two hon
f Orcd members Of two Of our leading reli-
; cious sects would not be 50 earnest i'll their
: denunciation OF that which would be so
subversive OF that liberty.
| should not have thought this argument
worthy Of notice il it had not been so per-
si>tently pressed by the hquor-dealers them
selves. bv the "Citlzens' Association y
which everyb body knows is in the Interest
OF the bar-keepers- by some VINO nave
discussed this question before The commit
tees Of the Legislature.
What are the hQuOr-dealerS really trying
TO do? The history OF this agitation plainly
shows. When this question was first present
ed for the consideration Of the CITY Council
il was under the patronage OF the Liquor
Dealers Association. They demanded that
the right to impose the penalty for viola
tion OF the Sunday law should be taken
from the Hastings Court and vested IN tbt
Police Court, alleging that they wanted thi,
change not from any desire TO escape the
punishment for wrong g-dOing-their repre-
sentatives protesting they had never violated
and would not violate the iaw-bnt that thu
income derived from fines for this offence
should go into the city treasury, ana that
the liquor dealers would be relieved from
4 the Injustice OF being punished twice fol
the same offence, forgetting that if they
observed the law there would be neither
fines or punishment. During the past
three months these same gentlemen were
cited TO appear before the Hustings Cour'
TO show cause why their licenses should
not be revoked because OF the falling on III
their Mofieit-registeT returns, as compared
with those Of the previous year; ana what
was their reply? "Last year we were per-
mtted 10 sell liquors on sunday as on any
other day Of the week, and Our Sunday safes
were larger than those OF any other day
; and, as several dealers put it, "equal TO any
two or three days in the week; but thi'
year you have, by the imposition OF heavy
penalties. compelled us TO respect the Ia"
and abstain from the sale OF liquor e,l sun
, day, and hence the falling off in our Motiett.
register returns" And yet il is claimed
that these men are as law-aDidlng and hon
est as any class in the community!
Beginning with THIS comparatively mod
est demard for a change OF jurisdiction
;. and enraged at the repeated refusal OF thu
. City Council TO grant their petition, they
seek redress at the hands OF the Legisla
ture, and are now asking that either th'
penalties shall be greatly lessened or es'
that the matter shall be left with thu
= City Council for its determination and con
troll.
II is objected to the present law that the
"maxImum fine is largely disproporllonec
to the offence" The question naturally
arises in every mind, Why should ibe tlnt
for selling liquor be larger than for sellinl
clothing or groceriesg Simply because tht
fine OF two dollars for the sale OF clothing
or groceries has been found sufficient ic re
strain the men engaged in those occupation
from selling their wares on the sabbath day