The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1910-01-28
n,ra SUNDAY EDITION.

/ esteemed friends:
To the Editor OF The Herald;
In your issue OF Saturday. notice
an announcement that YOU will on
Sunday morning, Feb. 6, issue an ex-
ira edition for the purpose Of giving
the result Of the county Democratic
primary. Now l admire your enter
prise and the spirit Of progress which
this edition gives evidence Of. but are
YOU not a bit inconsistent? But re
Gently you have condemned Sunday
selling. now you propose 70 issue a
Sunday morning paper. What is the
difference CONSISTENCY.
We very much fear that our friend
like many other readers Of The Her
aid. has read these columns to little
profit or we have not made our posi-
ton clear. The Herald has not con-
demned the Sunday selling of cigars
and soda water. 1t has urged the en-
forcement of a law prohibiting those
sales. Note the difference? If there
were a statute upon the books forbid
ding the issuance of a paper on Sun
day The Herald would be the very
last journal in the land to violate 1t
and the first to urge its impartial en-
forcement.
In its issue of January II, last, the
Herald undertook to make its position
plain. In the course of an editorial II
used this language:
This journal recognizes the fact
that it is impossible to suspend all
business on Sunday. 1t does not see
anything essentially immoral in sell
ing cigars and soda water on that day.
But it does believe that every man is
entitled to one day in seven for rest.
If the complications Of the Industrial
situation and the demands of modern
business life are such that there must
be a certain amount of Sunday work,
those who are compelled to labor on
Sunday should have some other day
for rest. Every employee should be
paid living wage based upon six ana
not seven days labor.
"But it is not a question of the pro-
priety or morality of Sunday selling.
The city has law upon the statute
hooks. It should be enforced. The |
great question of law enforcement
dwarfs all others If one class have
right to violate one law; another ele-
ment may claim immunity from
statute that does not suit their fancy
or convenience. The ultimate result
would be anarchy"
That is our position today we
have not changed. Doubtless many OF
those who condemn the proposed Sun
1av edition are regular subscribers
and readers of the Nashville Sunday
lailies. Not much consistency in that,
Is there? But that is aside from the
question. The Herald knows OF no
aw that a Sunday paper in Columbia
would violate The work necessary to
yet the paper out will be done on sat
1rdav and Saturday night. Not
single one of its employees will be de-
)rived a day of rest. For every nour
hat they work overtime they Will re-
,eive extra pay. 1t is very often nee
essary for The Herald force to work
,yer time, but when they do 1t they
.eceive pay and half for their ser
ices. Can Consistency and our
,ther critics say the same?
AS a matter of fact, 1t is not the
Sunday morning paper, but the mon
lay morning paper upon which the
ire of those who hold to a strict OBJ
,ervance of the Sabbath should train
heir guns. One is the product OF
week day toll; the other the product 5
# Sunday labor. The former does not
n anv way interfere with the Sunday i,
est and religious observance OF the
Law of those who make it; the latter
,eeps a large force away from church
md hard at work on Sunday and Sun .
Law night. And yet the writer has
,nown a majority of preachers ana
aymen attending church conventions
O refuse to buy the Sunday paper, but
vonld grab all the Monday papers IN
light.