The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-02-19

10 the Editor of The Post.
The above heading is the misnomer of
an article published in The Post of Feb
ruary :. in which DR.. G. s. Lincoln of san
Antonio attempts to answer my article in
the same paper of February l. wherein |
took the liberty to comment upon certain
propositions set forth in an editorial in
The Post Of Sunday, January II. in OPP
position to the proposed legislation rela =
tive to ball playing on Sunday. Before re-
ierring to the arguments OF my medical
brother, who seems so tenacious of his
supposed individual rights and so hyper
sensitive lest his personal liberty he in
vaded, desire to thank The Pest for tho
courteous character OF its editorial reply
to my criticism Of its position. While |
can not accept your conclusions heartily
commend the broad and dsnassionate
manner In which The Post treats the
question. But even Il cursory examination
OF your columns will show that you and
'r Lincoln diner mere widely than YOU
and |. You admit it Is right to dpsignae.
by law q day of religious observance. at
least day Of rest. and you claim that my
citations Of tho use of your argument bv
others to Justify gambling. drinking, etc.
on sunday, are foreign to the argument
and you further say The Post deprecates
Dissertation Of the Sabbath in that way
as much as its critic" But my professional
brother of San Antonio says The State
has no right TO designate day of rc-
ligious worship" and he asks why 1t is any
worse to keep theatcrs. beer gardens and
other similar places open On Sunday than
On any other day OF the week. May not
suggest the proprioty Of the advocates Of
Unrestricted Sunday amusemeuts getting
little nearer together in their yiewsP
Now "A few words to my critic. DR.. Lin
coin who so kindly offers 10 show mo nv
errors and at the same time furnish some
thing to mako bgots think. He savs
statutes generally styled laws TO prevent
the desecra'lon OF the Sabbath are uncon-
sttutional. unjust and tyrannical. -Wheth-
err they are unjust or tyrannical is a pro
per question for investigation and one con-
corning which ! cheerfully accord To p-
Lincoln the same right to hold and ev
press his views that / claim for u,vseif
Eut In his bold prefer to show mo tbot
-ihey are unconstitutional nc onlv ds
plays bis ignorance Of the subject liz ~
ters TO article l. amendments to I-r5tea
states constitution; TO article 4. sectio, .
OF same ana to the treaty made with Fri
roi! one hundred years ago. Doing neither
statesman nor lawyer | have mo, a.
cess to the latter document Nv. H.,
authorities are important and I win ssn',
MN with pleasure how much he i, 80,
sahen concerning them. Under the head &c
SUNDAY laws my encyclopedla ytos ~.
following references. e'es inc
hncycloped'a Of Law. volume q ar,io,,
sunday statutes: THE question RI tn''
eehstitutionali'y of statutes providing ,as
,he observance Of Sunday has been ~ WI
s,uered IN many cases. in most Of whit
. ,nese statutes have been attacked AZ ~
, ,n"r,s 10 ihiringe the rights Of religious
,Y1,hoy, put the courts have held. aimost
,s cons,,, oAtIepI,oh' that such lexislgtion
Of ,Scse ois' ana not in contrsvent.9n
uniIsd states and of the yar,o,s y, ,ne
~n''n guarantee full civil and re,ig; as,s