The herald., 1896-07-13

A Denial Of Rev. DR., Wilson's Statements
Editor Herald: I notice in your issue
of Monday, July 9Th, an article headed
Let Us Make 1t a Law, your reporters
statement Of the misstatements Of q
REV. Dr." Wilson to his congregation
on Sunday, July 9Th, in Los Angeles,
your causio editorial entitled Odious
letter from Elder owen correcting some
of the Rev. Dr." Wilson's misstate-
ments about the Sunday law protest and
his address the previous week before
the council. 1t is pleasing to know that
at least one Of our great dailies'' seems
to have some conception Of the wrong
that the majority would apparently in
fiict on the minority If they could. The
great peoples paper" the Times. has
very little to say upon this subject.
Silence would seem to give consent
to the contemplated infiction. The most
dignified way to treat the REV. DR.. I"
Wilson's TRADE would be the silence Of
contempt, but as this question Is Of
public import, upon which they are not
all fully informed, would like to make
some further corrections of the REV.
Dr.'s" misstatements through the col
umns of your paper.
He said: "The petition 10 in the in
terest of the toiling wage-worker of the
city In particular, and everywhere in
general" This I deny, and believe
the majority will agree with me upon
learning the truth. The public don't
understand this Sunday law question.
and consequently are not qualified to
sign petitions until informed upon 1t.
There are many names on the petition
which were placed there by their own
ers through a misunderstanding, and
they afterward appear on the protest.
The only people who thoroughly under
stand the Sunday law question are the
Seventh-d day Adventists; they have un-
derstood and preached against it for
many years. and II the advocates Of Sun
day laws knew what they are really
doing they would drop the whole busi-
ness like a hot potato. 1t is unconsti-
tutional and unchristian, and everyone
with common sense ought to be able to
see it.
He says, further the petition contem-
plates uniform and common day Of
rest and worship for all alike, the only
concept that does not contravene the
very purpose of a day of rest. This
uniformity I deny, because there are ex-
ceptions made. The restaurants, the
drug stores, the livery stables. are ex-
pressly excepted, and the railroads and
preachers will be excepted. The latter
will do their biggest days business Of
the whole week on Sunday. and they
want to shut off competition by law
for fear they will go to the wall. 1
predict that they will go there soon,
unless they repent-law or no law.
He says, again: I'VE are not asking
the council to make US rest or worship
by law, but only to protect dependent
wage-workers in their right to one day
In seven" This deny, because 1t pro-
hibits an employer selling his own goods
on Sunday.
He said; mo employer should have
the right to compel work upon the day
of common rest upon pain of discharge
for q refusal to comply with his wishes"
This deny, because If an employe
agrees to work on a day of common rest
and then fails, the employer has the
right to discharge him. If the employe
does not want to work on Sunday he
should not agree to do SO.
He says: Neither are we asking the
council for any new thing. but for a law
which prevails in the oldest. best gov
erned and most moral states in the
union" Satan himself is no new thing.
but that Is no argument for his contin-
of age. but whether 1t Is good or bad.
I say bad. most emphatically.
He said:' "At the hearing Of the pc
tition by the committee on public NOR
ais there appeared also a counter Pc
tition Cor protesD signed by 2300 people.
everyone who could be induced to at
tach their signatures" deny that 2300
is all that could be induced to sign the
protest. I believe we could induce 20
per cent of those who signed the petit
ton to sign the protest, and we could
get twice the number presented to sign
1t II necessary. But numbers "cut no