The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1895-02-15
PROPOSED SUNDAY LAW,
A Measure That the People VIII Nc
Indorse.

1nuOrSGs
From the Oakland Signs of the Times
AS was 20 be expected, bill providing
for Sunday law has been introduced in
the Legislature OF this State. Assem- bly,
man Hatfield or Sacramento introduced
the bill on the 9th inst, and it was re-
Ierred to the Committee on Public
Morals. 1t provides that any person
who, on the christian Sabbath, COM
monty called Sunday" shall perform or
binary manual labor, except such as can
not DE avoided, or such work as must of
necessity be done on all days of the week.
and such deeds OF charity as are due to
others at ali times, shall be deemed guilty
OF mlsdemeanOr, and be fined from so
to 500 or be Imprisoned from ten to fifty
days. 1t prohibits the keeping open of
any place OF business on penalty OF SO to
500 line, also the hawking and selling Of
newspapers on that day. The proposed
law applies TO all places of amusement,
with penalty of so to $500 fine Dis
turbing church service is punishable by
line OF 500 to 500, and hunting game by
fine OF $40 to $50 for the first otense.
Those who observe the seventh-d day
Sabbath are given the privilege OF doing
ordinary work on Sunday, but the "Ordi-
nary work" is not defined. Speaking for
ourselves, we have only to say that we
already have that privilege. The Lord
In his Sabbath law has given us the privi-
Iege OF doing our own work on the first
day of The week, and no human law
making power has either the moral or
equitable right to deprive us of the privi-
lege. Some people think they cannot
keep Sunday without a civil law to COM
pei everybody else to do so. In fact, this
Is staple argument with leading Sun
day-IaW advocates. But we are backed
by the far more important statute. the
law OF God, both in resting on the sew
enth and working on the first day.
Hence, we do not need a civil law for
either purpose. The fact that other peo-
pie do not want TO keep the Sabbath of
the Lord IS no hlndranCe to our doing so.
Nor Is it any of our business to compel
others to obey the law of God. He is the
executor of his own law, and he will see
to the execution of the penalty We
have nothing to do with that; the bust
ness OF GODS servants is to proclaim
the Gospel, to warn men of the
penalty of violating the moral law,
and point them 10 the conditions Of
pardon for having done so. The penalty
is death (Rom. vi, 23), and the Lord will
execute the penalty upon the finally i'm
penltent III his own appointed time and
manner. (See Matt. XIV, 3I-t6; Acts
Xvii, 81; 2 Peter ill.,, I; Rev. Xxx,
1l-15.) We deem the penalty pronounced
by the Almighty for violation Of his law
to be amply sufficient, and we are very
sure that no human authority has any
right to add anything to it. Nor do we
believe that any human authority has
the right to set up a Sabbath ii rivalry Of
the Lords holy day and compel their
fellowmen to observe it under penalty Of
any kind.
The Legislature of California has no
more right to pass a Sunday law than
Nebuchadnezzar had to set up golden
image for all the people to worship, or
2 l.n,, l. 40. had 70, l. l.
that no person should pray to anyone but
himself for thirty days. And the people
who truly regard the law. of God VIII pay
as little heed TO the sunday law as did
Meshach, Shadrach and \ bednego to the
image of the Chaldean King, or as did
Daniel to the decree of Darius, the Per-
sian monarch. The third and sixth chap
ters of Daniel give true parallels to the
Sunday-law principle, ana as our present
argument on the subject, we submit these
chapters to tho consideration OF the Com
mittee on Public Morals. w. n. G.