The Republican journal., 1917-02-15

| Gue az -1IldCle duu OlueI w VI ~ III CoiilltS'
ton with the meetings. Mr.. Sunday
did not receive one penny of the collec-
tons taken until the last day, when a
Free Will Offering was taken, which
was all that he received. No one
was urged to give beyond his means
and what he felt free to give. Mr..
Sunday said he did not want any one
to give cent who was not able to do so
an he would thank them just the same.
Why does not the editor of the Herald
criticize the saloon keepers of Boston, who
ike thousands of dollars from the
pockets and homes of people that can i'll
afford it? To make what? Drunkards,
broken hearts, ruined lives. sad homes
and irresponsible citizenship. Why
does he not critic the men who took
$l85, 900 or more at six ball games last
| October?
When a man like Billy Sunday comes
to a city and for ten weeks gives him
self so unselfishly to make strong men
and women, pure homes, and cleaner
city, TO strengthen morals, to overthrow
sin and wrong and evil and to establish
better conditions of living, then it is that
this editor uses his editorial columns to
speak in denunciation of such a person
and take his stand by the side of those
who seek to overthrow all that is good
and pure and true.
Why not mention some of the good
things that were done. While Mr.. Sun
day was in Boston he called upon poor
sick person and after he had been gone a
short time they found 5000 un Ter the pill
low, which Mr.. Sunday had left to aid the
again poor woman got interested in the
meetings and sent check for 500 to
Mr.. Sunday in appreciation of what he
had done for the family. Mr.. Sunday,
learning that she was poor woman, and
learning that she had mortgage on her
home, paid the mortgage and returned
the check she had sent him. Mr.. Sunday
is also keeping large number of young
men in college each year, which involve s
quite an expense. These things do not
reach the public.
Speaking of Billy Sunday the editor
continues; 81 think he is reckless, ir
responsible actor, making merchandise of
deplorable caricatlre of the Gospel of
Jesus of Nazareth.
Never was a statement more mislead-
ing than This. Of course the editor has
a right to his opinion, but opinions may
not stand for much; facts are worth
more. If Mr.. Sunday was only an ire
sponsible actor, as the editor would have
US believe, how is it that God evidently
approves of his work in the large num-
Der attracted and won to better life.
One instance will suffice. One man, an
ex-mayor of one of our large cities, was
won through Mr.. Sundays efforts. His
wife said: "For thirty-hve years my
husband has not come home sober from
his work, but now he is changed m m,
sober, kind and helpful. He is free
from his old habits, regular attendant
at church services, and he has happy
home made SO by his great change Of
life"
Several saloons have closed as re-
suit of Mr.. Sundays efforts in the CITY,
The editor says: "The attendance at Sun
days meetings have fallen off remarka-
bly, since his crusade for prohibition
reached its climax, and the people turn
ed down his arguments at the polls, and
the ministers wonder why the attend
apce fell off so quickly. 1t was not
wholly because of the holidays" What
are the facts? During the holiday sea-
son there was quite general sickness
prevailing in and around Boston. This
and the holiday season was largely the
reason for the smaller attendance, and
even then the attendance reached nearly
every night up to $4,000 or more. and
after the holiday season Mr.. Sunday had
the largest audiences during his cam
paign, both afternoons and evenings.
One had to 90 two and three hours be-
fore the service in order to, get seat,
and then it was difficult to find seat
unless one had ticket, and the last
week of his meetings from ten to fifteen
thousand were turned away nearly every
evening, besides the seventeen thousand
which the Tabernacle seated. Does this
look as if he had lost his audiences?