Larger font
Smaller font

Rev. W. F. Crafts Against the Editors of the American Sentinel

 - Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font



    In reply to Mr. Crafts’ accusations I would say: The editors of the American Sentinel are now infallible; we may have said some things in which we are mistaken; but from the evidence we have had, we supposed we were stating the exact truth. Whenever it may be shown that we have not stated the truth, we are ready and willing to make the correction.RCAAS 12.1

    The question is, then, between us and Dr. Crafts, as to whether we are justified in making the statements to which he objects.RCAAS 12.2

    First, the statement in regard to Mr. Crafts’ challenge to debate. He calls for the original letters. I have them all. He says: “They will show that my first challenge for debate at Kalamazoo was subject to the approval of the ministers of that city. This is stated in my original challenge to Prof. Jones.”RCAAS 12.3

    The italics are Mr. Crafts’. This is not only what he says; but he has taken a positive oath “that the above statement is true.” He does not make even the usual qualification of an oath, that it is true to the best of his knowledge and belief. He swears without qualification that his statement is true.RCAAS 12.4

    Here is the original letter to me in which the challenge was made (see fac-simile on opposite page):—RCAAS 12.5

    PROF. A. T. JONES: I expect to be in Michigan to speak somewhere—the place is under advisement—on evening of June 3rd. I would be glad to have a kindly debate, not in the interest of personal victory for either of us, but of truth, at Kalamazoo or some other large town quite near to your headquarters, that your people as well as mine may be well represented in the audience, or better still, let it be at the capital to which people may more readily come from all parts of the State. If you agree, I think I could get Lansing pastors to secure a hall and advertise the meeting or convention.RCAAS 12.6

    The subject of the debate to be the enclosed Sunday Rest Petition which is the form in which most,, of this petitioners have put this case. That is, the debate is substantially the same as that at Washington, only “before the Committee of the whole.”
    Yours for the Truth, WILBUR F. CRAFTS.
    RCAAS 12.7

    Resolved, that the following petitions ought to prevail.RCAAS 15.1

    Basis of debate. FOR A SUNDAY REST BILL.

    To the United States Senate:

    The undersigned, adult residents of the United States, 21 years of age or more, hereby earnestly petition your honorable body to pass a bill, forbidding, in the Nation’s Mail and Military service, and in inter-state commerce, and in the District of Columbia and the Territories, all Sunday traffic and work, except works of religion and works of real necessity and mercy, and such private work by those who observe another day as will neither interfere with the general rest nor with public worship.RCAAS 15.2


    To the House of Representatives of the U.S:

    The undersigned, adult residents of the United States, 21 years of age or more, hereby earnestly petition your honorable body to pass a bill, forbidding, in the Nation’s Mail and Military service, and in inter-state commerce, and in the District of Columbia and the Territories, all Sunday traffic and work, except works of religion and works of real necessity and mercy, and such private work by those who observe another day as will neither interfere with the general rest nor with public worship.RCAAS 15.3

    There stands the original challenge of Mr. Crafts. It shows that no such statement or condition was made, as that the debate was subject to the approval of anybody; and as for the ministers of Kalamazoo, they are not even mentioned. The only ministers that are referred to are “the Lansing pastors,” he thought he could get the Lansing pastors “to secure a hall and advertise the meeting or convention.” That is all. There is no such statement as that the debate was subject to the approval of the Lansing pastors; and I repeat, as for the Kalamazoo ministers, they are not even mentioned in the letter. Mr. Crafts may say the he meant it so, or that he intended to say so; but that is not the question. He says that we “might properly be called to answer either in civil or church courts,” and we are ready to answer in either civil or church courts. But he must bear in mind that when he comes into either a civil or church court, the question will not turn upon what he meant, or what he intended to say, but upon what he said. The above letter shows what he said. He swears that that challenge will show that a debate at Kalamazoo was “subject to the approval of the ministers of that city.” The challenge shows nothing of the kind. Mr. Crafts has sworn that the challenge says what it does not say.RCAAS 16.1

    Further: Even though the challenge had actually said that the debate was subject to the approval of the Lansing pastors, still it would be a false oath, because he swears that it was subject to the approval of the ministers of Kalamazoo. But the challenge does not even say of the Lansing pastors what Mr. Crafts swears it says of the ministers of Kalamazoo. Therefore it is demonstrated that on this point his oath is not true in any sense. Mr. Crafts has made a most serious mistake. I am sorry that it is so; but there is no escape.RCAAS 16.2

    He may plead that he made this condition in a letter written to Rev. W. A. Waterman of Kalamazoo. But how was I to know that? And even though it were true, what matters it to me, what he wrote to Mr. Waterman? That is not the question. The question is upon what he wrote to me. He swears that he wrote to me what he did not write to me. That is all there is to that point.RCAAS 16.3

    For your better information, I will present the whole correspondence precisely as it occurred. My answer to Mr. Crafts challenge was as follows:—RCAAS 17.1

    BATTLE CREEK, Mich., March 18, 1889.

    Dr. W. F. Crafts, New York City

    DEAR SIR: Yours of March 6 was received several days ago; but as I am to attend some general meetings under the direction of our General Conference Committee the coming spring and summer, and as that committee is now in session here, I had to await their arrangement of dates for the meetings which I am to attend, before I could make answer. These dates have been now arranged, and I can say I gladly accept your proffer to debate.RCAAS 17.2

    Your choice of Kalamazoo as the place is perfectly satisfactory, as that would be much handier for me and for our people generally than would any other.RCAAS 17.3

    You said nothing in your letter about how long the debate should be; you only mentioned your expectation to speak somewhere in Michigan the evening of June 3. Did you expect the debate to begin the 4th of June, and continue—how long? Surely you would not expect to confine the debate to one evening, and have it take the place of your expected address. Such an arrangement could not do the subject justice.RCAAS 17.4

    I will deny the proposition which you inclosed, while you affirm it. And when I shall have done that, then I request you to deny the one which I herewith inclose, while I affirm it. You can have as much time in your affirmative as you choose, though I think there should not be less than two days, with two sessions each day, of two or two and a half hours each. I could be content with an equal amount of time on my affirmative; yet in no case will I be arbitrary.RCAAS 17.5

    I am authorized to say to you that you are welcome to the free use of our church building in Battle Creek as long as you want to debate, at any time. This building will seat 3,500 people; and this city has about 12,000 inhabitants. I extend to you a cordial invitation to visit us at Battle Creek while you shall be in this State.RCAAS 17.6

    Awaiting your reply, I am, yours, etc.,RCAAS 17.7


    The counter proposition referred to in the foregoing is as follows:—RCAAS 17.8

    To the Honorable, the Senate of the United States:—We, the undersigned, adult residents of the United States, twenty-one years of age or more, hereby respectfully, but earnestly, petition your honorable body not to pass any bill in regard to the observance of the Sabbath, or Lord’s day, or any other ecclesiastical institution or rite; nor to favor in any way the adoption of any resolution for the amendment of the National Constitution that would in any way give preference to the principles of any one religion above another, or that will in any way sanction legislation upon the subject of religion; but that the total separation between religion and the State, assured by our National Constitution as it now is, may forever remain as our fathers established it.RCAAS 17.9

    Before I received from Mr. Crafts any answer to my acceptance of his challenge, I was called to Chicago, and wrote from there the following letter:—RCAAS 18.1

    CHICAGO, Ill., April 8, 1889.

    Dr. W. F. Crafts, New York City

    DEAR SIR: It has been quite strongly impressed upon my mind the last few days that the city of Chicago would be a much better place in every respect for the debate which you proposed to me when you suggested Kalamazoo. I am now in Chicago, and shall be until April 10. I find that the report has reached here that such a debate has been proposed; and there is a strong desire expressed, and quite widely too, that the debate might be held here. As you suggested in your letter to me that this debate was to be before the committee of the whole, Chicago would be far more appropriate upon this consideration than any other place, it seems to me, in the Union.RCAAS 18.2

    The question of the Sunday law has been agitated largely in Chicago; mass meetings have been lately held; the leading ministers of Chicago are in favor of it; and it is certain that a larger audience could be gathered here than perhaps any other place. And the papers here would extend the notice of it all over the country, and the influence of the discussion, it if were held in this city, would be felt over the greater part of the Union. Halls of sufficient size to hold as large a crowd as might be gathered can be had at not much expense comparatively, and we might say at a very little expense, as it is thought that collections taken in the audience would very nearly, if not fully, meet the expense of whatever hall might be secured.RCAAS 18.3

    I therefore sincerely ask your favorable consideration of the proposition which I here make to hold the debate in Chicago.RCAAS 18.4

    I see by the Pearl of Days, of March 29, that you are to be in Wisconsin June 11. If you are to be in Michigan June 3, it would be apparently directly in the line of your appointments to hold the debate in Chicago between the 3rd and the 11th.RCAAS 18.5

    Hoping that this may receive your favorable consideration, and awaiting your reply, I remain,
    Yours respectfully, ALONZO T. JONES.
    RCAAS 18.6

    Of this step Mr. Crafts states in his affidavit: “Before the ministers of Kalamazoo replied, Prof. Jones wished the place changed to Chicago, to which I consented, subject to the approval of the Illinois Sabbath Association, as is shown by several of my letters to Prof. Jones.” The italics are his own.RCAAS 18.7

    Here is his letter:—RCAAS 19.1



    PROF. JONES—Dear Sir: I will transfer debate to Chicago for Friday evening, June 7th, as the reasons you give are good ones. Please see Rev. Dr. Mandeville, Pres. of Illinois Sabbath Association, and see if that organization will join you in arranging for the meeting. Music Hall is the proper place. To make sure of expenses let ten cents be taken at the door, announced as “A collection of 10 cents each at the door, to pay expenses.” The advertising should be thoroughly and impartially done, announcing the subject and the debaters, giving the whole petition, which I will sustain and you oppose. You can quote your petition if you choose, not in advertising, of course, but as a part of your negative argument, but I have only one night unengaged—the one named—until later in the season. I hope we may have the debate over again at some other point, with two nights or more for it. For the 7th, let us begin at 8 sharp, and speak 45 minutes each, with 15 each for rejoinders. I appoint Dr. Mandeville to represent me in the arrangements as far as debate is concerned. The expenses I leave for you and his Society to arrange, and divide surplus, if any, beyond my usual $10 for traveling expense.
    W. F. CRAFTS.
    RCAAS 21.1

    In that letter there is no such statement as that either the debate or the change was subject to the approval of the Illinois Sabbath Association. The letter says: “I will transfer debate to Chicago.” He does not say he would transfer the debate subject to the approval of the Illinois Association, no, anything of the kind; but that he would transfer debate to Chicago, and that “as the reasons you give are good ones.” The words are plain, and without qualification.RCAAS 21.2

    Then, of the Illinois Association he says: “Please see Rev. Dr. Mandeville, president of the Illinois Sabbath Association, and see if that organization will join you in arranging for the meeting.” I was not to ask Dr. Mandeville if that organization would approve of the debate. I was not to ask whether that organization would consent to have such a meeting; but to see if that organization would join me “in arranging for the meeting.” And the only thing I ever gathered from Mr. Crafts’ letter on this point was that if that organization would not join in making arrangements he would name another party.RCAAS 21.3

    Again, Dr. Crafts may say that he meant that the debate was subject to the approval of the Illinois Sabbath Association; and again I say, The question is not what he meant, but what he said. He makes oath that this letter shows that the change of the debate to Chicago was subject to the approval of the Illinois Sabbath Association. The letter does not show it. He has sworn that the letter will show what is does not show. Mr. Crafts has made a mistake. I am sorry. It is too bad; but I cannot help it.RCAAS 21.4

    Having now positively proved by his own letters, that in these two points he has made a false oath, and having thus clearly impeached his testimony; I might here drop the whole subject, and, upon every principles of law and justice, count myself clear; being fully justified by the legal maxim, “Falsus imn uno, falsus in omnibus—false in one point, false in all.” But I am willing to waive all this, to be more than strictly just, and, as far as time will permit, to notice all the other points to which he has made oath.RCAAS 21.5

    As Mr. Crafts appointed only one evening, June 7, for the debate, and as I had told him in my letter accepting his challenge, that one evening’s debate would not at all do justice to the subject, I did not go to see Dr. Mandeville, but wrote the following letter to Mr. Crafts:—RCAAS 22.1

    CHICAGO, Ill., April 9, 1889.

    Dr. W. F. Crafts, New York City

    DEAR SIR: Your letter I received last night. As you have but this one night—June 7—unengaged, and as you hope we may have the debate over again at some other point with more time, would it not be far better under all the circumstances to put the time over until you can have all the time that is needed.RCAAS 22.2

    Allow me to suggest points which make it seem to me ever so much better to do so: First, no other place would be as fit as Chicago for having it another and longer time, especially after having had it in Chicago only one night. through the thorough advertising recommended by you, and which I heartily endorse, it is certain that ministers upon both sides would want to come from many miles on all sides of Chicago, but who would not think it would pay to come for only one night. Upon these considerations alone it seems to me that it would be only abusing, if not throwing away, the very best opportunity that can possibly be had.RCAAS 22.3

    But aside from all this, it would be impossible for either you or me to do any sort of justice to the subject, or the people who would come to hear it, by talking virtually only forty-five minutes each upon it; because the following fifteen minutes on either side could not be employed in anything else than the briefest rejoinders to thoughts suggested by the foregoing speech of the other. This would certainly be very unsatisfactory to the people, because it would awaken a multitude of questions, of new thoughts etc., which they would have no opportunity of hearing further discussed or explained.RCAAS 22.4

    Besides these considerations, which seem to me to make it almost imperative that it should be more than one night in this place, there is a personal consideration with me which I submit to your candor; I have an appointment in Williamsport, Penn., June 4-11, at the State meeting of the Seventh-day Adventist Conference of Pennsylvania. It would hardly pay me to leave in the midst of that meeting, and be at the expense of going all the way to Chicago, simply for an hour’s talk; and then either neglect the balance of the meeting in Pennsylvania, or else be at the expense of going back there. besides, for me to leave that meeting would be a disappointment to hundreds of people. I am sure that you will admit that it will hardly be just to make that journey under the circumstances for only one hour’s talk in Chicago.RCAAS 22.5

    What I would suggest is this: Fix upon a later date; secure Central Music Hall, as you suggested; thoroughly and impartially advertise, as you propose; and let the debate continue five nights or six, beginning Monday evening; take a collection at the door to pay expenses. Five nights will give plenty of time for an affirmative on each side of the question, and certainly will be much more just to the cause of each disputant, and very much more satisfactory to the public. If this were done, undoubtedly excursion rates could be secured over the roads centering in Chicago, and people would be there from all parts of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and perhaps from greater distances. This would be strictly in conformity with your original proposition to have the discussion before the committee of the whole.RCAAS 23.1

    I think, dear sir, that you will admit the justice of this proposition and these suggestions as a whole. I make no choice, or even suggesion [sic.], as to what date it should be. If it can be five nights or more, every appointment and arrangement that I should otherwise have in view will be made to conform to that, and that take precedence of everything.RCAAS 23.2

    I would leave the suggestion of the date wholly with you to arrange according to your own convenience. If we could have a sufficient number of nights to do justice to the subject and to the public, I would not hesitate at all to accept the date of June 7, and would break up the appointment in Pennsylvania or anywhere else that would conflict with it. It is not any particular date that I ask for; I only ask for a sufficient time to do justice both to the subject and to the people, whenever the date may be, and the choosing of the date I leave wholly with you.
    I am, yours respectfully, ALONZO T. JONES. 26 College Place, Chicago, Ill.
    RCAAS 23.3

    In reply, I received the following letter (fac-simile on page 24 and printed text on page 27):—RCAAS 23.4

    74 E. 90th Street, N. Y., 4-12-’89

    PROF. JONES: I happen to have open June 12, 13, 14, all I can spare at any time. I can come to Chicago then for the debate, on several conditions: 1. My expenses from Minneapolis and return, and locals in Chicago. 2. Both of us to agree not to linger after 14th to speak on Sabbath, lest the attendance be weakened, or speeches be made with no chance to reply. 3. The debate to be under joint control of your committee and Illinois Sabbath Association, Rev. Dr. Mandeville, President, Chicago. 4. The debate to be one continuous debate for the three nights. Myself, as affirmative, to speak an hour the first night, and you to follow with half an hour of your reply, “to be continued in our next.” You to have first hour second night and myself closing half hour. The third night each to speak twice; opening addresses 30 minutes each, to be followed by rejoinders of 15 minutes each—the order to be determined by lot, that is, who shall open, &c.RCAAS 27.1

    Your petition I should not consent to debate separately, as it relates to National Reform, with which I am not connected, and to Blair amendment, which, as Field Secretary, I have no right to work upon. I shall, however, refer to that petition, and you can, of course, use it in your argument as far as you consider it pertinent.
    Yours, W. F. CRAFTS.
    RCAAS 27.2

    Please see Dr. Mandeville, and show him this letter, and see what he says about it. As to money, above expenses of hall and advertising, if any, I should be willing to have it given to your denomination and Illinois Sabbath Association equally, or more appropriately, devoted half and half to your literature and to ours, or better yet, to the printing of stenographic reports of the debate. I should insist on a competent stenographer taking down every word, to prevent misreporting from going uncorrected. These dates have already been refused to a S. S. Assembly that would have paid $50 for two or three addresses, and may be wanted any hour. Please hasten a final decision.
    W. F. C.
    RCAAS 27.3

    This is the last letter I received from Dr. Crafts before he declared the debate off. And as with the others, so with this; there is no such statement as that the debate was subject to the approval of the Illinois Sabbath Association or any other party. The third condition is: “The debate to be under the joint control of your committee and Illinois Sabbath Association.” Not that these committees were to decide, or either of them, whether there was to be any debate or not, nor whether the debate depended upon their approval, or the approval of either of them; and it is certain that neither I nor my representatives ever supposed for a moment that these committees were to decide whether the debate should take place or not. Further, Mr. Crafts asked me in his letter to “please see Dr. Mandeville, and show him this letter, and see what he says about it.” We shall come presently to the place where Dr. Mandeville is shown the letter, and we shall see what he said about it.RCAAS 27.4

    As Dr. Crafts requested me to hasten a final decision, I replied by the following telegram:—RCAAS 27.5

    Dr. W. F. Crafts, 74 E. 90th St. N. Y.

    Propositions accepted. Arrangements going on.RCAAS 28.1

    A. T. JONES.

    As I was to leave Chicago that same evening for Minneapolis, I appointed Elders R. M. Kilgore and Geo. B. Starr, of Chicago, to act with the Illinois Sabbath Association in making arrangements. They visited Dr. Mandeville, and made an appointment for another meeting. The further proceedings are shown in the following communication to Dr. Mandeville, and his reply:—RCAAS 28.2

    CHICAGO, Ill., April 19, 1889.

    Rev. C. E. Mandeville, 394 West Adams St., Chicago, Ill.—RCAAS 28.3

    DEAR SIR: Since returning from my talk with you yesterday, at Mr. Moody’s Tabernacle, in reference to the proposed discussion between Rev. Crafts and Professor Jones, I find that we have an appointment for Saturday evening, which I knew of then, but for the time entirely forgot it, which makes it impossible for either Elder Kilgore or myself to call at your house Saturday night.RCAAS 28.4

    Could you not therefore inform us by mail what the mind of your committee is?RCAAS 28.5

    We prefer Central Music Hall, as I told you, and will agree to bear one-half of all expenses not covered by collections; but if your people decide on Farwell Hall, we will acquiesce in it; although a large amount of advertising should be done, which, we fell, would go out with a better tone to it if Central Music Hall should be the place of the meetings.RCAAS 28.6

    We anticipate a large attendance of our people, and others whom we know to be interested in the subject. you will know best what the interest will be on your side of the question; but we should judge it would be very good.RCAAS 28.7

    It seems to us that a liberal sum should be appropriated for advertising. We will furnish one-half of the amount decided upon, and will meet with two persons selected by your committee to decide on the nature and manner in which the advertising shall be done.RCAAS 28.8

    If you will write us after your meeting with the committee, so that we can get it by Saturday night, or the first thing Monday morning, we will inform the Central Music Hall folks accordingly. Yours respectfully, GEO. B. STARR, Secretary Illinois Press Committee. 26 and 27 College Place.RCAAS 28.9

    894 W. ADAMS ST. CHICAGO, Ill., April 20, 1889.

    GEO. B. STARR, Esq., 26 College Place, Chicago, Ill.—Dear Sir: The Executive Committee of our Association met yesterday and took under advisement the matter of the proposed public debate. After carefully considering the question in all its bearing, we came to the conclusion indicated in the inclosed resolution.
    Very sincerely yours, C. E. MANDEVILLE.
    RCAAS 29.1

    WHEREAS, The proposition to hold a public debate between Rev. W. F. Crafts and Prof. Jones on the petition are a Sabbath Rest Bill has been referred to the Illinois Sabbath Association; therefore,RCAAS 29.2

    Resolved, That as the time of this Association is fully occupied with its own work, they do not deem it advisable to spend either time or money in any discussion which, in their judgment, will in no way conduce to the better observance of the Sabbath.RCAAS 29.3

    Here we are brought to another point in Dr. Crafts’ list of charges. He says that—RCAAS 31.1

    The Illinois Sabbath Association declined to approve and arrange the debate, on the ground that Professor Jones had shown himself a trickster at the Washington hearing, and that his obscure sect were not worthy of so much attention.RCAAS 31.2

    Mr. Crafts has positively sworn, and without qualification, that this is true. but the foregoing resolution of that Association, declared by Dr. Mandeville over his own signature to be the conclusion to which that Association came, gives as the sole reason, that in their judgment a debate would “in no way conduce to the better observance of the Sabbath.”RCAAS 31.3

    It may be that the Illinois Association gave to Dr. Crafts the statements which he has sworn are true. If they did, then the foregoing resolution, and signature of Dr. Mandeville, show such statement to be clearly false, and Dr. Crafts’ oath that it is true does not help the matter a particle. More than this: From his experience in crossing the continent, and especially from the result at the mass meeting in the Congregational Church in this city last week, I am persuaded that Mr. Crafts himself will now agree that the reasons given him by the Illinois Association were mistaken ones. Because when in Oakland, the city of churches, the Brooklyn of the West, at a largely advertised Sunday-law mass meeting, when not half of our people of this city were present, there were yet enough of us to out-vote the Sunday-law petitioners, it would fairly seem that we are not such an obscure sect as the Illinois Association would have him believe.RCAAS 31.4

    Another point comes in right here which strongly confirms the fact that the debate was not considered as subject to the approval of either the ministers of Kalamazoo or those of Chicago. The Christian Statesman of April 18, 1889, contained an announcement of Mr. Crafts’ appointments for the month of May, June, and part of July, in which is found the following:—RCAAS 31.5

    June and a part of July is to be devoted to the Central States (from Ohio to Kansas), June 2 being engaged for East Saginaw, Mich., June 3 for a debate with the champion of the Seventh-day Adventists at some place in Michigan.RCAAS 31.6

    And the California Christian Advocate of April 17, announced that—RCAAS 31.7

    Mr. Crafts is to debate with Professor Jones of the Seventh-day Adventists, in Michigan, and will probably arrange to meet some of their leaders in California also.RCAAS 32.1

    Manifestly this statement could have come originally from no other person than from Mr. Crafts himself; and its being printed in the California paper dated a day before the Philadelphia paper, shows that it was an announcement made by him to different parts of the same time, yet this also completely fails to make any provision for the approval of the Kalamazoo ministers or anybody else.RCAAS 32.2

    As soon as I learned of the action of the Illinois Sunday Association, I wrote to Mr. Crafts as follows:—RCAAS 32.3

    MINNEAPOLIS, Minn., April 24, 1889.

    Dr. W. F. Crafts, New York City

    I have just read letters and resolution from Chicago, showing that Dr. Mandeville and the Illinois Sabbath Association refuse to have any part in the arrangements for our debate that it to be in that city.RCAAS 32.4

    I do not see, however, that this should in any way hinder the progress of the arrangements, nor tend to conflict with out own plans. If they do not want to have any part in the matter, let us go ahead and complete arrangements, and carry the discussion through ourselves, as we have conducted it so far.RCAAS 32.5

    I am satisfied that the collection will more than pay expenses; and let the proceeds above expenses be divided between your National Association and ours.RCAAS 32.6

    I see by the Christian Statesman of late date that they have learned that the debate is to be, and have announced it. It is too late to drop the matter; besides, I repeat, I do not think the action of the Illinois Association should affect the progress of the matter between you and me. We can advertise just as thoroughly without them as with them. It will be their loss, not yours.RCAAS 32.7

    I insist, therefore, that we go ahead according to the suggestions made by you and accepted by me, regardless of the action of Dr. Mandeville and the Illinois Association.RCAAS 32.8

    My brethren in Chicago will do all in their power to make the thing a success, and I assure you they can be trusted to work impartially in all the advertising and other arrangements that may be engaged in. They can attend to the local arrangements—securing Music Hall, advertising, etc., according to directions from you and me.RCAAS 32.9

    If you can get some of your friends in Chicago to act for you with them, of course that will be more satisfactory.RCAAS 32.10

    I send to them a copy of this letter, and say to them that I expect them to be ready to go ahead, as though the Illinois Association had not refused.RCAAS 32.11

    Please let me know your mind at your earliest convenience.RCAAS 33.1

    Yours truly, ALONZO T. JONES.

    Ottawa, Kansas, by the time your letter reached me.RCAAS 33.2

    I next received from Dr. Crafts the following by postal card, written two days before my letter:—RCAAS 33.3

    NEW YORK, 4-26

    Illinois Sabbath Association do not consent to debate & so there will of course be no debate at Chicago on dates named, and it is too late to arrange for any other place at present. A new call for addresses had made it necessary for me to use those dates in the line of my original plan of tour, and so the whole matter will have to rest for the present as I leave home to-morrow, and shall in few days leave on a winding way for the West.
    W. F. CRAFTS.
    RCAAS 33.4

    Before I had time to reply, I received also, by postal card, the following:—RCAAS 34.1

    I have hit upon another plan for having the debate in Chicago in the Autumn, on the same general plan as I wrote—of which I will write you when it is arranged, if others concur in it. Probably it will be a month before I can arrange it, when in vicinity of Chicago in person. W. F. CRAFTS.RCAAS 34.2

    En route, 2-25-’89. Address always, 74 E. 90, N. Y.RCAAS 34.3

    To these I replied in a letter, which Mr. Crafts has sworn “is an abusive private letter.” Here is a verbatim copy of this “abusive letter:“—RCAAS 34.4

    OTTAWA, KANSAS, May 3, 1889

    Dr. W. F. Crafts, New York City

    DEAR SIR: Your card of April 25th received at this place yesterday. I was about to answer your other card anyhow.RCAAS 35.1

    Your plan of having the debate in Chicago in the autumn is satisfactory if it shall be made definite and carried out.RCAAS 35.2

    You speak in your card of writing to me about it “when it is arranged, if others concur in it.” I fail to see what the concurrence or non-concurrence of others can have to do with it. I was not challenged by any others than yourself to debate; I had no others in view to debate with when I accepted your challenge. The challenge has come from yourself; the proposition, the division of time, and all other suggestions in regard to the debate, have come from you, and have been accepted by me. And the announcement has been made by you in the East that it was to be. The Christian Statesman and The Herald of Reform have announced it; and I count it wholly an inadequate reason for your declaring the debate off, as already arranged for Chicago, June 12, 13, 14, that the Illinois Sunday Association declined to have any part in it.RCAAS 35.3

    The obtaining of the hall, advertising, and other local arrangements for the discussion, were not wholly dependent upon Dr. Mandeville, and the executive committee of which he is chairman; there are other people in Chicago besides these, who certainly could attend to that just as well as they. And, I repeat, their declining is no valid excuse at all for your setting aside your own challenge, your own propositions, and your own appointment of dates, which I had accepted without qualification.RCAAS 35.4

    Yet all this I am willing to pass by if you will within a reasonable time appoint a date to which you will certainly stand.RCAAS 35.5

    I care nothing for the concurrence or non-concurrence of others; but unless some date is definitely settled, as above suggested, I shall hold you to the date already fixed, and hold you alone responsible for the failure of the debate to come off upon the date specified, June 12, 13, 14.RCAAS 35.6

    It certainly is an unusual thing for a challenger to declare a meeting off simply because certain third parties decline to have anything to do with making arrangements. Such proceeding is too much like trifling, too much like child’s play, for me to look upon it with much favor.RCAAS 35.7

    I hope you may soon be able to fix a definite time, whenever it may be; but I cannot promise now to accept whatever date you might name, because certain important arrangements have been made for my work in the fall, which would, in a certain measure, have to be conformed to; but this will not be much of an interference, because we can surely fix upon a date without much difficulty.RCAAS 35.8

    Hoping to hear a favorable report from you soon, I remain,
    Very respectfully yours, etc.,
    RCAAS 35.9

    Now I am willing to submit to any civil or church court to decide whether this is an abusive letter or not.RCAAS 36.1

    In answer to that letter I received from Dr. Crafts, by postal card, the following:—RCAAS 36.2


    I do not like the tone or wording of your letter. I have never accepted challenge except on condition, in the first case, that Kalamazoo pastors would arrange in my behalf. When you wished a change, that Illinois Association, in whose field you wished to have it, would see that my interests were fairly attended to. By referring to my letters you will see that I have kept to my agreement. I cannot allow you to arrange the debate, now are there others in Chicago to whom it would be proper for me to turn. I am doing all that I can to arrange for the debate. W. F. CRAFTS.
    Field Secretary American Sabbath Union.
    RCAAS 37.1

    There is a point here worthy of particular notice. In the second sentence he says, “I have never accepted challenge except on condition,” etc. In this he deftly turns the whole case around, makes himself the challenged party, and, of course, in that event makes me the challenging party. This opened the way for him to decline the challenge, as I found announced by Dr. Nelson when I reached this place. But it is just about as unusual a thing for a man to decline his own challenge, as it is for the challenging party to declare a meeting off because certain third parties will not help make arrangements.RCAAS 37.2

    It is true that on that card he said he was doing all that he could to arrange for the debate; but as I had told him plainly in my last letter, that unless some date to which he would stand was soon definitely settled, I would hold him to the date already fixed; and would hold him alone responsible for the failure of the debate to come off at the time specified, as there was then more than a month before that time should come, and as I have received no communication from him since, I yet hold him alone responsible for the failure of the debate to come off at the time appointed by himself—June 12, 13, 14. I further hold that the failure was without valid excuse on his part, and that the record fully sustains me in so holding.RCAAS 37.3

    Mr. Crafts further says that as late as June 9, at Milwaukee, he told Rev. Mr. Corliss, pastor of the S. D. Adventist Church at Battle Creek, that he was “hoping to have the debate in California, or at Battle Creek.” He says also that, “two days before” he said the same thing to somebody else whom he “met in Chicago.” But what was all that to me? He did not say anything of that kind to me, neither at that time, nor up to this time. Mr. Corliss was not acting for me. Whether I could debate or not did not depend upon the concurrence of somebody else. My acceptance of Mr. Crafts’ challenge was not subject to the approval of Mr. Corliss or some unnamed, and perhaps unknown person, whom Mr. Crafts happened to meet in Chicago. I was conducting my part of the controversy myself, and supposed Mr. Crafts was capable of doing the same thing for himself.RCAAS 38.1

    This closes that part of my reply which relates to the debate. Although it is clearly demonstrated by every count that he has sworn to things which are not in any sense true, yet I do not accuse him of “willful and malicious” false swearing; nothing of the kind. I only say that Dr. Crafts, failing to keep copies of his letters, forgot what he had written, and then swore to what he had not written. Then Doctor has made a very serious mistake. He ought to be more careful of his letters, and much more careful of his oath.RCAAS 38.2

    One other statement only I will notice. Mr. Crafts says that at the hearing before the Senate Committee on the Sunday law. I “gave my case away” “by admitting the premises which any logical mind can see leads straight to the conclusion that the government may make such a Sunday-rest law as is asked for” in their petition. Mr. Crafts has positively sworn that this is true. In reply I submit a portion of an open letter, which I wrote to the Secretary of the American Sunday-law Union as soon as I received the monthly document in which this statement was originally made. In this case, it may be addressed to Mr. Crafts as well as to Dr. Knowles, to the field secretary as well as to the other secretary.RCAAS 38.3

    The following is the extract:—RCAAS 38.4

    “DEAR SIR: In the monthly documents of the American Sunday Association, edited by yourself, you have chosen to charge me with insincerity; and you have also done your best to make it appear that I ‘admit all that the friends of the Sunday-rest law generally claim—the right of the government to make Sunday laws for the public good.’RCAAS 38.5

    “You have garbled extracts from the report of my speech before the Senate Committee on the Sunday law, and then have italicized certain words and sentences in one passage to try to make it appear that I admit the right of the government to make Sunday laws for the public good.RCAAS 39.1

    “You have quoted from my speech the following words in the following way:—RCAAS 39.2

    “Whenever any civil government attempts to enforce anything in regard to any one of the first four commandments, it invades the prerogatives of God, and is to be disobeyed (I do not say resisted, but disobeyed).... The State, in its legislation, can never legislate properly in regard to any man’s religious faith, or in relation to anything in the first four commandments of the decalogue; but if in the exercise of his religious convictions under the first four commandments he invades the rights of his neighbor, then the civil government says that is unlawful. Why? Because it is irreligious, or because it is immoral? Not at all; but because it is uncivil, and for that reason only. [Italics ours.—ED.]RCAAS 39.3

    “It is in the italicizing of these words that your effort is made to make me admit what I continually and consistently denied before the committee, and do deny everywhere else. You have inserted in the above quotation three periods, indicating that a portion has been left out; and you know full well, sir, that in the portion which is there left out, is the following:—RCAAS 39.4

    Senator Blair.—You oppose all the Sunday laws of the country, then?RCAAS 39.5

    Mr. Jones—Yes, sir.RCAAS 39.6

    Senator Blair—You are against all Sunday laws?RCAAS 39.7

    Mr. Jones—Yes, sir; we are against every Sunday law that was ever made in this world, from the first enacted by Constantine to this one now proposed.RCAAS 39.8

    Senator Blair—State and national alike?RCAAS 39.9

    Mr. Jones—State and national, sir.RCAAS 39.10

    “Not only were these words there, but in that portion which you have printed following the italicized words, you yourself have printed my plain denial of the right of any nine hundred and ninety-nine people out of a thousand to compel the thousandth man to rest on the day on which the majority rest, in the following form:—RCAAS 39.11

    Senator Blair—The majority has a right to rule in what pertains to the regulation of society; and if Cesar regulates society, then the majority has a right in this country to say what shall be rendered unto Cesar.RCAAS 40.1

    Mr. Jones—If nine hundred and ninety-nine people out of every thousand in the United States kept the seventh day, that is, Saturday, and I deemed it my choice and right to keep Sunday, I would insist on it, and they would have no right to compel me to rest on Saturday.RCAAS 40.2

    Senator Blair—In other words, you take the ground that for the good of society, irrespective of the religious aspect of the question, society may not require abstinence from labor on the Sabbath, if it disturbs others?RCAAS 40.3

    Mr. Jones—No, sir.RCAAS 40.4

    Senator Blair—You are logical all the way through that there shall be no Sabbath.RCAAS 40.5

    “That last expression of mine, saying ‘No, sir,’ is in accord, and was intended when spoken to be in accord, with Senator Blair’s inquiring statement whether society may not require abstinence from labor on the Sabbath. My answer there means, and when it was spoken it was intended to mean, that society may not do so. As to its disturbing others, I had just before proved that the common occupations of men who choose to work on Sunday or any other day do not disturb and cannot disturb the rest of the majority who choose to rest that day.RCAAS 40.6

    “Again: A little further along you print another passage in which are the following words:—RCAAS 40.7

    Senator Blair—You would abolish any Sabbath in human practice which shall be in the form of law, unless the individual here and there sees fit to observe it?RCAAS 40.8

    Mr. Jones—Certainly; that is a matter between man and his God.RCAAS 40.9

    ‘Now, sir, I should like for you in a monthly document, or by some other means, to show how by any fair means, or by any sincere purpose, you can, even by the use of italics, make me in that speech admit the right of the government to make Sunday laws for the public good. You know, sir, that in that speech I distinctly stated that any human laws for the enforcement of the Sabbath, instead of being ‘for the good of society, are for the ruin of society.’RCAAS 40.10

    “Again: You know (for you printed it in one of your documents) that Senator Blair said to me: ‘You are logical all the way through that there shall be no Sabbath.’ You know that in another place he said again to me: ‘You are entirely logical, because you say there should be no Sunday legislation by State or nation either.’RCAAS 41.1

    “Now, sir, I repeat, you have charged me with insincerity. Anyone making such a charge as that ought to be sincere. Will you, therefore, explain upon what principle it is that you claim to be sincere in this thing, when in the face of these positive and explicit statements to the contrary, and Senator’s Blair’s confirmation of them to that effect, you can deliberately attempt to force into my words a meaning that was never there, that was never intended to be there and that never can by any honest means be put there?RCAAS 41.2

    “More than this: It can hardly be thought that Senator Blair will very highly appreciate the compliment that you have paid to his logical discernment, when, in the face of his repeated statement that I was logical all the way through, you force into my words a meaning that could have no other effect than to make me illogical all the way through.RCAAS 41.3

    “I have no objection to your printing my words as they were spoken; but I do object to your forcing into them a meaning directly contrary to that which the words themselves convey, and which they were intended to convey; and I further object to your so garbling my statements as to make it possible for you to force into them a meaning that they never can honestly be made to bear.RCAAS 41.4

    “In that speech also I said that if an idol-worshiper in this country should attempt to offer a human sacrifice, the government should protect the life of its subject from the exercise of that man’s religion; that he has the right to worship any idol that he chooses, but that he has not the right to commit murder in the worship of his idol, and the State forbids the murder without any reference at all to the question as to whether that man is religious or whether he worships or not, with no reference to the commandment which forbids idol-worship, and with no thought whatever of forbidding his idolatry. I stated also that if anybody claiming apostolic example should practice community of property, and in carrying out that practice should take your property or mine without our consent, the State would forbid the theft without any reference at all to the man’s religious opinions, and with no thought of forbidding the practice of community of property. You know that it was with direct reference to these words that I used the words which you have italicized. I there distinctly denied that the State can ever of right legislate in relation to anything in the first four commandments of the decalogue. But if any man, in the exercise of his rights under the first four commandments, and in this case, under the fourth commandment, should invade the right of his neighbor, as I have expressed it, by endangering his life, his liberty, or his property, or attack his character, or invade his rights in any way, the government has the right to prohibit it, because of the incivility; but with never any question as to whether the man is religious or irreligious, and with never a purpose or a thought of forbidding the free exercise of any man’s right to work on any day, or all days as he chooses.”RCAAS 41.5

    This is precisely what every State in this Union already does by statutes which punish disturbances of religious worship or religious meetings, or peaceable assemblies of any sort. But there is a vast difference between such statutes as these and the ones which you desire shall be enacted. These are strictly civil statutes, prohibiting incivility, and are far from anything like the enforcement of religious observances. The Sunday-law workers complain of the disturbance of their worship on Sunday. If they are sincere in this, why don’t they enforce the laws already on the statute books prohibiting disturbance of worship? California, for instance, prohibits disturbance of worship, under penalty of five hundred dollars’ fine and six months in jail. But instead of having such legitimate laws enforced, you propose to prohibit the disturbance of your worship on Sunday by compelling everybody to keep Sunday. Upon this same principle you would have the State forbid the offering of human sacrifices by an idol-worshiper, by compelling him to keep the second commandment. In short, the principle is that you would have the State prohibit incivility by compelling everybody to be religious. And you are so enraptured with this distorted view, that you have chosen in your sincerity and by italics to force me to sanction the wicked principle. But it will not work. I say always, if your worship is disturbed on Sunday or at any other time, let the State punish the person or persons who create the disturbance. Let the State punish them by such strictly legitimate statutes as the States already have on this subject. But let the State never attempt to prohibit disturbance of worship by trying to compel men to worship, nor attempt to prohibit incivility by enforcing religious observances. This is just what I had in view, and is precisely what I meant, in the words which you have italicized.RCAAS 42.1

    All this is further shown in the argument which I made, in that, immediately following the words which you have italicized, I proved that Sunday work does not disturb the rest or the worship of those who keep Sunday. And the conclusion of that is, therefore, that there is no basis for Sunday laws on that ground. This I prove by the fact that the people who make this the ground of their demand for Sunday laws, do not recognize for an instant that work on Saturday disturbs the rest or the worship of the people who keep Saturday. I there showed that if your work on Saturday does not disturb my rest or my worship, my work on Sunday cannot disturb your rest or your worship. I made this argument not only on this principle, but from actual experience. I know, from an experience of fifteen years, that other people’s work on Saturday does not disturb either my rest or my worship on that day. There are Seventh-day Adventists in every State and Territory of this nation, in Canada, nearly every country of Europe, the Sandwich Islands, Australia, South America, China, South Africa, and other places. They all rest every Saturday; they all keep it as the Sabbath unto the Lord. But no person has ever yet heard of a Seventh-day Adventist who ever complained that his rest on the Sabbath was disturbed by other men’s work. Not only is this so, but the Seventh-day Adventists have organized churches in the great majority of the States and Territories of this Union. These churches are found in country places, in villages, in towns, and in cities. They meet for worship every Saturday; and although, as everybody knows, Saturday is the busiest day in the week, in the midst of such busy cities as Chicago, Denver, San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Kansas City, these churches of Seventh-day Adventists assembly for worship; and no person has ever yet heard of any Seventh-day Adventists making a complaint that their worship was disturbed by the work, the business, or the traffic that is carried on by other people on that day. The fact is, our worship is not disturbed by these things.RCAAS 43.1

    Now, sir, if all the labor, the business, and the traffic that is done on Saturday, the day which is acknowledged by all to be the busiest day of the week,—if all this, in such cities as I have named, does not disturb our rest or our worship, will you please explain how it is that your rest and your worship are disturbed on Sunday, when there is not one-thousandth part as much labor, or business, or traffic done on that day as is done on Saturday?RCAAS 44.1

    This, dear sir, is only an additional argument, but one which rests on the living experience of thousands of people every seventh day, conclusively showing that your whole theory and claim for Sunday laws break down utterly at every point.RCAAS 44.2

    Just one observation I would make in closing: If such is the case with Dr. Crafts’ unqualified oath, with what confidence can the people receive his unsupported word? And if he is so reckless of a solemn, deliberate oath, how careful is he apt to be of common running statements?RCAAS 44.3



    To the Committee

    GENTLEMEN: In response to yours inclosing affidavit of W. F. Crafts, published in the Daily Republic of June 28, 1889, wherein he professes to show that A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner, editors of the American Sentinel, have been guilty of willful and malicious slander and falsehood, in their opposition to the work of the American Sunday Union, of which Mr. Crafts is one of the chief representatives, I return the following statement—RCAAS 44.4

    These charges of slander and falsehood were made in the most positive manner, and were sworn to before a notary public, and therefore deserve serious consideration. If the charges are true, we might, as Mr. Crafts, properly be called to answer either in civil or church courts. So far as I am concerned, I am only sorry that Mr. Crafts’ lecture engagements make it inconvenient for him to prosecute in person; for in that case it would have been necessary for him to endeavor to bring some positive proofs of his assertions. But whenever he may arraign us, we will cheerfully come and answer to the charges.RCAAS 44.5

    In what follows I shall make special reference only to that portion of the charges which relates to me personally, or to articles that I myself wrote. The field of investigation is not very extensive, since Mr. Crafts’ entire charge is based upon one number of the American Sentinel, viz., a supplementary number, of June 19, 1889, in which he says that he finds sixty-seven falseholds [sic.]. In taking up this matter, I shall deal with it more definitely than Mr. Crafts has, and therefore my reply will necessarily require a little more space.RCAAS 45.1

    The first thing that I notice that what if found in the following:RCAAS 45.2

    The false charge that I and other leading promoters of the Sunday-rest petition have been guilty of the treason of a “false count.” (11) On page 162, last column, it is charged that we “counted those members who were opposed to the bill as favoring it.” This is a false and malicious assumption, without proof. The votes of the churches and labor organizations have been stated, in nearly all cases, “unanimous;” in others the exact vote “for” and “against” is recorded on the petition.RCAAS 45.3

    The figures that appear in parentheses in the article of Mr. Crafts, are his enumeration of the falsehoods which he professes to find in the Sentinel. I begin with number 11, because the preceding numbers refer to matter which is answered in another place. The reader who is unacquainted with the question at issue could not possibly get any idea of it from the paragraph just quoted. The statement concerning the counting of those who were opposed to the bill as favoring it, appeared in an article entitled “Whose Image and Superscription is This?” which deals with the petitions which were presented to Congress for a National Sunday law. I present here, from the article referred to, not only the few words which Mr. Crafts quotes, but also the connection:—RCAAS 45.4

    The petition for a Sunday law, to which it is claimed that upwards of fourteen million signatures have been obtained, reads thus:—RCAAS 45.5

    “The undersigned organizations and adult residents of the United States, twenty-one years of age or more, earnestly petition you to pass a bill forbidding in the Government’s mails, military service, and inter-state commerce, and in the District of Columbia, and Territories, all Sunday work, traffic, etc.”RCAAS 46.1

    That is plain enough to be understood by anybody. If that had been circulated in a legitimate manner, for individuals signatures, no complaint could have been made. But right on the face of the sheet which contained the petition, provision was deliberately made for fraud. Immediately below the petition was the following note:—RCAAS 46.2

    When a labor organization or church, or any other society, indorses the petition BY VOTE, let the ‘name’ of the organization be signed, with the attesting signatures of the presiding officer and clerk or secretary, with place and date, and in the margin, under ‘number of petitioners,’ indicate the numbers in the organization petitioning.”RCAAS 46.3

    This meant that at any meeting of any church or society, a vote could be taken on the petition. If a majority of the members present voted in favor of it, the presiding officer and the clerk would sign their names, and set down the number of members in the entire church or society. Now it must be evident to the most zealous partisans that such a plan could not by any possibility secure an individual expression of opinion. In the first place, it allowed a part to speak for the whole, and in the second place it coerced those members who were opposed to the bill, as favoring it. in many cases a minority would speak for the whole.RCAAS 46.4

    The statement which is made, and which we here reiterate, is that in the petitions circulated by the organization of which Mr. Crafts is field secretary, there was direct provision made for fraud. Then: The petition declares on its face that those who sign it are adult residents of the United States, twenty-one years of age or more. Immediately following on the same page is the instruction above quoted, to labor organizations, churches, and other societies, as to how to indorse the petition by vote. The instructions are that when any body indorses the petition by vote, the presiding officer and clerk are to sign the petition, and indicate in the margin the number in the organization petitioning. Mark this: The instruction is not simply to give the number of members present when the vote was taken, but to give the number of members in the organization. Now, it might be possible that at the meeting of some churches at which a vote indorsing the petition might be taken, there would be none but adult members present, although this would be improbable in the majority of instances; for everybody knows that there are very few churches in the United States that do not contain some members under twenty-one years of age. Now, according to the instructions given in the petition, all the members in the organization are to be counted as favoring it. And when that petition is sent to Congress, it attests that every member is twenty-one years of age. We say that when such a thing is done, it is fraud, and the petition provides for just such fraud.RCAAS 46.5

    Moreover, the minority in many cases would speak for the entire body. Thus, 200 members would be a very common representation of a church of 500 members, at any ordinary meeting,—an evening prayer meeting, for instance, or a Sunday evening service. Now if the petitions were presented and voted upon, the whole 500 members would, according to the instruction in the petition, be counted as favoring it, and so, even if the vote were unanimous, 200 people would be counted as 500. If Mr. Crafts had quoted my article instead of simply referring to it, his statement that this “is a false and malicious assumption without proof” would have had no weight; for the proof appeared in the portion of the article which I have already quoted, and still more appears and will be given in answer to his next charge, which is as follows:—RCAAS 47.1

    (12) In the same column there is a quotation so abridged as to make it the ground of a willful misrepresentation, as can be seen by comparing it with the full record in the Congressional Record of January 17, 1889.RCAAS 47.2

    The quotation to which he refers, and which he says is such an abridgment as to make it a willful misrepresentation, is as follows. I give it with the paragraph which preceded it in the article, and the one following it:—RCAAS 47.3

    On Wednesday, January 16, the first of these petitions was presented to Congress. After senators from several States, including Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Indiana, had presented petitions from churches, labor unions, Women’s Christian Temperance Unions, etc., from their respective States, Mr. Blair arose and said:—RCAAS 47.4

    “I present petitions of several bodies, praying for the passage of a Sunday-rest law. Of the petitions, the following analysis is submitted by those who desire their presentation:—RCAAS 47.5

    Petitions from National Bodies.


    1. Individual signatures 407
    2. Representative signatures by indorsements of bodies and meetings: 14,174,337
    Total 14,174,744

    “Analysis of the latter:—RCAAS 48.1

    “First indorsement is that of the American Sabbath Union, which was officially constituted by official action of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Home Missionary Society of the Baptist Church, the General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church (North and South), and the Synod of the Reformed Church, five denominations, whose membership together is 5,977,693. Of the membership of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the indorsement of whose international convention stands second, at least 20,000 citizens of the United States. Of the Knights of Labor, the indorsement of whose international convention stands third, at least 219,000 citizens of the United States. The Presbyterian General Assembly, North, whose action stands next, had at the time of the indorsement 722,071 members. The convention of Christian Workers, whose indorsement is next, had 450 present when the unanimous vote of indorsement was taken. The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, which comes next, had 185,521 at the time of the vote. The Roman Catholics, for whom Cardinal Gibbons speaks, number 7,200,000.”RCAAS 48.2

    Now what do we learn from this? Several things, namely: That out of 14,174,744 alleged petitioners for the Sunday law, only 407 persons actually signed the petition. That in order to produce a greater effect, the petitions were presented first by States and Territories, and then in bulk. In that way the strength of the petitions which had already been duplicated, was duplicated again.RCAAS 48.3

    There is no other way of showing that this is not a misrepresentation, than by quoting the complete report as it appeared in the Congressional Record of January 17, 1889. Here it is:—RCAAS 48.4

    Larger font
    Smaller font