The record-union., 1891-02-12

ton, was the next speaker. He claimed
that members of the Legislature Were not
elected because they are Christians.
They were elected to represent their
constituents, who include Christians,
and many who are not Christians.
-Four years ago the people OF this State
raised their voices against Sunday law
by majority of more than Il, 900. If the
Legislature is not a Christian institution,
it has no business to pass such laws as
the one proposed. There are plenty of
men who are good Christians, yet who
do not observe Sunday. If the law can
compel men to observe Sunday, it could
compel them to observe Saturday.
Legislation of this kind is religious in
character, and therefore repugnant to the
Constitution. The bill under considera-
ton, he claimed, was deceptive. 1t was
ostenSibly aimed at bull-fightS, dog
fights, ETC., but it went much farther.
The next thing to be asked would be a
bill to make the dogs do their fighting on
specified days of the week.
INJURING THE STATE.
Rev. r. M. Stevenson, pastor of the
Westminster Presbyterian Church, said
that the present manner of keeping the
Sabbath in California was turning away
immigrants from the State aud sending
them to Puget Sound and other places.
Sunday law would prevent this, and
return good value in the way of settling
up the State. The religious services in
churches were often disturbed by brass
bands parading the streets on Sundays,
and the congregations have no redress
under the laws of the State.
There are at least a million laborers in
the land who demand the Intervention of
Sunday laws in order to secure one days
rest in seven. Other States of the Union
had adopted Sunday laws, and main
tained them, and it was late III the day
Tor any one to arise in this State and say
that such laws are unconstitutional.
The sect which had protested against
this proposed law is one of the smallest
in the Union, and yet provision is made
IN the bill to exempt its members from
its provisions. Without Sunday observ-
ance there can be no morality, and was it
to be said that California--one of the
grandest States of the Union, so far as
fertility of soil and natural advantages
are concerned-was content TO drag along
IN the rear of the great procession OF pro-
gress that is moving over the land?
OTHER ARGUMENTS.
Mr.. w. n. Glenn of Oakland spoke
against the bill, and was followed by Rev.
G. P. Tyndall in it's favor.
The argument was then taken up by
Mrs. Bailou, who criticised the bill
which she claimed to be contradictory,
uisSiihtiiatiiiS III CnaIdctef, anu lilefe-
fore unconstitutional. Ifitwas well TO pre-
vent liquor drinking on Sunday, it
should be prevented on every other day
She believed in people spending their
Sundays in ways suited to their circunl-
stances and surroundings. The poor
laborer needed Sunday to take his
housed-up family out into the sunlight
and to get acquainted,with them. Under
the blue sky they could worship God and
at the same time avail themselves of the
recreation they stand so much in need of.
Mrs. Judge Mayhem addressed the
committee in support of the BILL but her
voice was so low that she could not be
heard many feet away.
Rev, Mr.. Thompson closed the argu-
ment, and at a late hour the committee
adjourned without action on the bill.