New-York tribune., 1901-06-09
GENERAL MORGAN'S VIEWS.

To the Editor of The Tribune
Sir: have been quite interested in the discus
sion Of the Sabbath question in your columns oc-
casioned by the Yonkers incident. The matter is
of such far-reachng sgnifcance and of such
general interest to be worthy of thorough dis
cussion. beg leave OCCUPY a very small por-
ton of your space, not for discussion, but for a
suggestion which seems to me of practical value
There are three great questions involved which
ought not 10 be confused.
The first is the desirability of preserving the
Sabbath as a weekly day of rest and religious privi-
lege. There is practically consensus of opinion
among probably the great majority of the intelli-
gent people OF this country that it would be a dis
tnct loss to our civilization if the Sabbath should
become wholly secularized. Anything which tends
10 weaken the public sentiment in favor of the
SabDath is TO be deprecated: its preservation and
observance can only be hoped for on the basis of
q strong public sentiment in its favor. In COM
mon with multitudes of constant readers of The
Tribune, should be exceedingly sorry to feel that
II should in anywise cast the tremendous weight
Of its influence against the Sabbath l do nor be-
leVe The Tribune Will do 1 believe it can be
depended upon hereafter. as heretofore TO be a
stanch advocate of all that is best in or ci,,i1i-.
ton.
Second-The question of Sabbath Hesitation is a
more difficult one. In the Jewish theocracy. where
church and state were identical legislation in be-
half of the Sabbath expected as a matter of
course: in modern States, from the time of Con-
stantine, wherever Christianity has been the
State religion, it has been under the protection of
the legislature, and statutes have been props of
the Sabbath. In this country where the great
doctrine OF the complete separation of the church
and state is progressively emphasized, IL is ques
Ionable certainly whether the state has any right
10 legisate for the Sabbath a religious insttu-
ton; seems to be a clear violation of the relig
ious liberty of the citizen for the State to impose
the religious observance of the first day OF the
week upon Jews and other classes of citizens who
regard the seventh day the true Sabbath.
l am inclined myself 10 the opinion that the State
has right whatever interfere with the liberty
bath, except in far protect the rights
and privileges of those who wish 70 keep II
day OF religious exercises. The individual would
seem 10 have the right spend the day accord
ing TO his conscience in far he does
not interfere with its conscientious observance by
be drawn here is not easy always TO determine. 1t
ts possible that there is yet more light to break
OUT of public discussion.
Third-Then. there is the question of obedience TO
law We have established the rule Of the majority.
We recognize the right of the majority to make
such laws may best for the general well
fare. If the law prohibits certain games on the
first day Of the week the law ought to be obeyed,
and those who knowingly violate the law Grim
inals and should be punished. II the law is an un-
wise one, it is perfectly proper for any class OF
citizens to agitate its repeal but until II is re-
peaed IT Is the duty ot ali law abiding. order loving
citizens who place the public welfare above per
sonal convenience to strictly observe the law. or
course, IL is the privilege Of man to make him
self martyr by disobeyng the law and suffering
fhe penalty If he thinks thereby he can awaken
pubc interest and lead TO its repeal.
It seems to that Of your correspondents
have not kept these three points clearly distinct.
and have been led into some confusion Of mind in
consequence. Very truly yours,
New-York City, June T. I. j. MORGAN