November 28, 1899

“Editorial” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 76, 48, p. 772.

THE N. W. C. T. U. has put itself on record, by resolution regularly adopted, as in favor of “the amendment of all State Sunday laws which do not contain the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day.”ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.1

It is certainly of interest to all “those who keep the Sabbath day” to know what “the usual exemption” is, or is likely to be. And there is sufficient history on this subject to give considerable information—history, too, of which the N.W.C.T.U. is a part. For the benefit of all, we shall here sketch this history of “the usual exemption.”ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.2

In 1888, at the request of the N.W.C.T.U. and allied organizations, Senator Blair introduced into the United States Senate “a bill to secure to the people the enjoyment of the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord’s day, as a day of rest, and to promote its observance as a day of religious worship.” The bill met with considerable opposition throughout the country; and of this opposition “those who observe the Sabbath day” were a part.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.3

To check this opposition, an amendment to the bill was suggested by the N.W.C.T.U., at the great hearing that was held in the Senate Committee room, at Washington, D.C., Dec. 13, 1888. This proposed exemption, which was added to the Blair bill, reads as follows:—ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.4

Nor shall the provisions of this act be construed to prohibit or to sanction labor on Sunday by individuals who conscientiously believe in and observe any other day than Sunday as the Sabbath or a day of religious worship, provided such labor be not done to the disturbance of others.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.5

In January, 1890, again at the request of the N.W.C.T.U. and allied organizations, what is known as the Breckinridge bill—“a bill to prevent persons from being forced to labor on Sunday”—was introduced into the House of Representatives, in Congress, together with one of like nature in the Senate. The blank petitions, which were circulated all over this land for signatures, and which, when signed, were presented in Congress, and in response to which the Breckenridge bill was introduced, read thus:—ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.6

To the House of Representatives of the United States:ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.7

The undersigned organizations and adult residents (twenty-one years of age or more) of the United States hereby earnestly petition your honorable body to pass a bill forbidding in the United States mail and military service, and in interstate 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 religiously and regularly observe another day of the week by abstaining from labor and business, as will neither interfere with the general rest nor with public worship.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.8

In response to this petition, the Breckinridge bill, as originally introduced, bore this exemption,—ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.9

Provided, however, that this provision of this act shall not be construed to apply to any person or persons who conscientiously believe in and observe any other day of the week than Sunday as a day of rest.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.10

And this exemption was especially claimed by the W.C.T.U. as that which they had “given.”ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.11

Another item in this connection is the fact that the same Dr. W. F. Crafts who helped the N.W.C.T.U. at Seattle in framing and adopting this substitute resolution, was also the chief aid of the N.W.C.T.U. in framing, introducing, and working for the adoption of the Blair Sunday bill and the Breckinridge bill; and he was their chief aid in circulating, securing signatures to, and presenting, the petitions that brought forth the Breckinridge bill; and it was he who was also the chief instrument in framing all these proposed exemptions.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.12

These examples, therefore, give a very fair idea of what is meant by the phrase “the usual exemption,” in the resolution adopted at the late N.W.C.T.U. convention. This is so because the persons concerned in the framing of this resolution are, in measure at least, the identical persons who framed all these exemption clauses.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.13

Now, let any one examine carefully every one of these exemption clauses, and see how much real exemption “the usual exemption” “gives” to “those who keep the Sabbath day.” The first one requires that whoever shall be exempted must “conscientiously believe in and observe” another day than Sunday as the Sabbath. And even then it is distinctly declared that the law shall not be construed “to sanction labor on Sunday by individuals who conscientiously believe in and observe any other day than Sunday, as the Sabbath or a day of religious worship.” And, further, that when this labor is done with the “sanction” of the law, it must “be not done to the disturbance of others.”ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.14

The actual reading of the exemption clause in the Breckinridge bill is that the law “shall not be construed to apply to any person or persons who conscientiously believe in and observe any other day of the week than Sunday as a day of rest.” But the petition, in response to which that bill, with its exemption, was framed, shows the intent of the clause in the minds of those who originated it; and “the intention of the lawmaker is the law.”ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.15

Now notice how all-embracing that exemption is, in the petitions that were presented, which called forth the exemption: nothing is excepted “except works of religion, and works of real necessity and mercy, and such private work by those who religiously and regularly observe another day of the week in abstaining from labor and business, as will neither interfere with the general rest NOR with public worship.” Nobody can have the benefit of the exemption from the requirements of the Sunday laws unless he meets all these strict requirements, both public and private. In short, the exemption clauses which they have framed deliberately propose to take cognizance and jurisdiction of the whole religious and conscientious life, public and private, of those who observe any other day than Sunday. And such is the nature of “the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day.”ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.16

Nor is this all. it is found in actual practise that this “usual exemption” does not exempt; as indeed it was never intended that it should, and as its very nature prohibits its doing. In the late convention at Seattle, when this subject was before the N.W.C.T.U. for discussion, Mrs. Tomlinson, national superintendent of parlor meetings, told the convention that—ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.17

New Jersey has a law which makes an exemption of those keeping the seventh day as the Sabbath; and yet in my own State this last winter the seventh-day people who had observed the day strictly, and who opened their stores or places of business in a quiet manner upon the first day of the week, were visited by the chief of police, and told that if they did not close their places of business upon the first day, they would be arrested.... Therefore in those States where there is an exemption the people are not always protected.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.18

And this in itself is in exact accord with statements made on this subject in former times. In July, 1887, there was a joint convention of the National Reform Association and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (not a national convention), held at Lakeside, Ohio. Upon this subject of exemption, in that convention Dr. David McAllister, of the National Reform Association, who then, and for years, worked hand in hand with the W.C.T.U. everywhere in national and other conventions (and who no doubt, is doing so yet), said:—ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.19

Let a man be what he may,—Jew, seventh-day observer of some other denomination, or those who do not believe in the Christian sabbath,—let the law apply to every one, that there shall be no public desecration of the first day of the week, the Christian sabbath, the day of rest for the nation. They may hold any other day of the week as sacred, and observe it; but that day, which is the one day in seven for the nation at large, let that not be publicly desecrated by any one, by officer in the government, or by private citizen, high or low, rich or poor.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.20

This is sufficient to give to the N.W.C.T.U., and to the public, a good understanding of the nature and operation of “the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day,” which, by resolution, the N.W.C.T.U. has voted to “favor.” Need it seem strange to the N.W.C.T.U. that “those who keep the Sabbath day” will probably not be very enthusiastic helpers in obtaining such exemption? Should it seem to them strange that our co-operation might be found lacking?ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.21

But while, in the nature of things, we can not co-operate in the endeavor to secure such exemption, we will constantly do our best, in a perfectly plain but altogether respectful way, to make plain to the W.C.T.U. just what is involved in Sunday laws, whether with or without exemptions. That is why we write this. We gladly do the women of the W.C.T.U. the justice to say that we believe they do not in any degree realize the true character of Sunday laws, whether with or without exemptions; and that they do not discern the true issue that is before the N.W.C.T.U. We believe that if they did discern this, they would be far from doing what they have done, and are doing, in that connection. We hope that they will candidly consider the whole mighty question that is now before them.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.22

“‘A Very Nasty Sound’ Indeed” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 76, 48, pp. 772, 773.

EVEN Harper’s Weekly now stands among the apologists for slavery within the jurisdiction of the Untied States in the Philippines. The weekly has an official correspondent in the Philippines. In the issue of Nov. 18, 1899, there is a two-page article on the subject, by this correspondent, in which he writes as follows:—ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.1

It has a very nasty sound—and one likely to arouse all very good people to a pitch of frenzied indignation—to say that within the territory now owned by the United States, in spite of the Thirteenth Amendment and the war of the Rebellion, slavery still exists. And yet slavery in the Sulus is by no means the dreadful thing that the word suggests. There are many free American citizens who have less liberty of action and opportunity to do what they please than the Sulu slave. The social system among the Moros is much more primitive than it is among the greater part of the other Philippine races. A chief, or dato, controls a district; he has his own particular followers and his slaves; besides these, he may command all the men of his own district in time of war. He also has the right of life and death over his subjects. For instance, a few weeks before we arrived in Jolo, Dato Jokanine had occasion to execute one of his followers. The man had been entrusted with money belonging to the dato. The first time, he came to his chief and said: “O great and benevolent dato, I have gambled away thy money; forgive me!”ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.2

“Very well,” said the dato; “see that it does not happen again.”ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.3

Once more the retainer came, saying: “O great and benevolent dato, again have I gambled away thy money, and again I beg thee, in thy great mercy, to forgive me.”ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.4

“This is the second time I have forgiven thee,” said Jokanine; “but the third time, I warn thee, thou shale die.”ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.5

Yet again the unfortunate man returned without the money he had collected for the dato. “O dato,” he cried, throwing himself at the feet of his chief. “I have sinned again and taken thy money; mercy! mercy!”ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.6

“Cut him down,” said the dato to one of his men-at-arms. The man offered no resistance, and was cut to pieces with one of the great knives of the natives.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.7

Another story, which shows well the authority held by a dato over his people, is worth the telling. It seems that a blacksmith had been making love, in a quiet way, to a member of the harem of Dato Jokanine. Jokanine knew of this, and came to the man’s smithy one day. the smith was just finishing off a large barong.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 772.8

“Let me see that knife,” said Jokanine. Then, running his finger along the edge, he added, “It seems sharp; may I try it?” “Certainly, dato,” said the unsuspecting smith. Without a second’s hesitation, Jokanine raised the knife and split the smith to the chin. The right a master has to kill his slave is therefore no stronger right than that exercised by all the datos and the sultan over the life of every man in Sulu.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.1

Such well-authenticated stories as these show how lightly these people prize life. Indeed, if one freeman kills another, the murderer is brought before one of the datos and fined one hundred and eight Mexican dollars, or fifty-four dollars in gold. There is, however, no fine for killing a slave. Slavery among the Sulus does not originate in difference of race or color; neither has it its origin in war. The slaves are of the same race as their masters, and are for the most part acquired in payment of past debts. Thus, if a man owes you a large sum of money, he may sell himself or his children to you, and thus cancel the debt. Girls are sold for hard cash, I believe, but it is not a common occurrence, nor one which takes place against the will of the girl. If a slave runs away from his master, and returns to his original home, declaring that he positively refuses to serve the master any longer, the custom is for the family to get together and pay the original debt, thus releasing the slave. of course the slave is bound to work, but, as a rule, he only works when his master works, and as that is a matter of very infrequent occurrence, slavery in the Sulus can not be called an arduous occupation. The slave eats and sleeps in the same house as his master, he is treated more as a retainer than as a slave. The children of Sulu slaves are also slaves, but they have especial privileges, and are considered family retainers. It is considered a disgrace to sell one of these slaves. In fact, it is merely because we have no more accurate word to describe the condition that I use the word “slavery.” The status is really one between the serfdom of the Middle Ages and the peonage of Mexico....ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.2

Through the diplomacy and patience of General Bates, these Moro people have become our friends, and at the same time have granted us greater privileges than the Spaniards had, not least among these being the privilege of an American to buy land. It would be foolish to overlook the fact, however, that this treaty does not materially touch the institutions of the country, at least two of which are contrary to our Constitution and laws—slavery and polygamy.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.3

I have endeavored to show that slavery, as it exists in the Sulus, works little or no hardship to the native; that it is far removed from the conventional idea of slavery, and really resembles only in name the status of our North American negroes before the Rebellion. Moreover, any radical interference on our part with the existing institutions of the Moros would unite them against us. The method pursued by General Bates in his negotiations was the English one of playing off the local jealousies of different chiefs against one another, not treating only with the sultan, but with all the leaders. This method was possible because the interests involved in the sultan’s case were selfish ones. The datos knew this, and sided with us, knowing that they would receive a regular, if small, allowance from the American government.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.4

The question of slavery is different. To touch more than lightly upon national institutions would be to strike at the very root of social life. General Bates showed exceedingly great tact in the clause of the treaty concerning slavery. Slaves may purchase their freedom for twenty dollars, Mexican money. Only slowly can slavery be eradicated from a country without doing great wrong to property owners; and it is to be hoped that Congress, when it comes to act, will see the advisability of letting the present treaty stand as it is—at least for the present.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.5

Polygamy is an institution so connected with the Mohammedan religion that the clause of the treaty protecting the religion of the country practically protects polygamy. The Moros have generally several wives. They are, of course, limited by the Koran to four, and but few have the full number. Besides these wives they have innumerable concubines. If one of the concubines of the sultan bears him a child, she immediately becomes his wife, provided, of course, that the number of his wives is not already complete....ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.6

Slavery, as it exists among the Moros, can only be abolished gradually, by a judicious series of moves, such as the one made by General Bates in the treaty just gained.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.7

Polygamy is even more deeply rooted in a Moro, and will disappear only when Islam has lost its hold over him.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.8

If the land of the Sulu group and Mindanao prove the land of promise that some hope,—if American enterprise and capital gradually change the country from a jungle to a paradise of tobacco, hemp, and coffee plantations,—then the Moro and his institutions will gradually be shoved out, succumbing, as our North American Indians succumbed, to the superior race. Until that time comes, by all means let the Moro live in peace; let his children chant the Koran, and his wives weave rough cloth. Of growth he may be capable; but if you force him too hard, he will struggle and fight against progress, and adopt our worst rather than our best qualities. Our civilization, good and bad as it is, is a process of gradual evolution, and you can not expect a wild race to change too suddenly. Our unwillingness to take the other man’s view has wrought trouble for us in Luzon, and the wise ones say: “Beware how you meddle with the institutions of the Moros of Sulu and Mindanao!”ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.9

“And yet slavery in the Sulus is by no means the dreadful thing that the word suggests”!! The chief has “the right of life and death” not only over his slaves, but over his subjects, and he exercises that power according to frightful examples given; “and yet slavery in the Sulus is by no means the dreadful thing that word suggests”!!ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.10

One “freeman” can kill another, and the murder be atoned for by cash—“one hundred and eight Mexican dollars, or fifty-four dollars in gold;” he can kill a slave, and make no answer at all; “and yet slavery in the Sulus is by no means the dreadful thing that the word suggests”!! All this can be practised upon human beings, and yet their condition be so altogether pleasant that “it is merely because we have no more accurate word to describe the condition that” “the word ‘slavery’” can be used at all with reference to it! All this “works little or no hardship to the native”! “It is far removed from the conventional idea of slavery”! “and really resembles only in name the status of our North American negroes before the Rebellion!” And Harper’s Weekly prints and passes along all this as proper and acceptable for its columns!!ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.11

And all this is carried on under the supreme law—for a treaty is part of the supreme law—of the United States; and is further sanctioned by the payment of ten thousand dollars a year from the United States treasury to these slave-holding, murderous, polygamous chiefs.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.12

True, all this is not carried on under the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; for these documents are repudiated. It is acknowledged that it is “contrary to our Constitution and laws.” It is plainly said to be “in spite of the Thirteenth Amendment” to the Constitution.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.13

In view of all this, if the United States is not repudiating “every principle of its Constitution as a republican government,” then what would be such a thing? If that is not “national apostasy,” then how can there ever be such a thing as national apostasy in this land?ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.14

“Editorial Note” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 76, 48, p. 773.

IN regard to the dividing up of Samoa and her people by the United States and other powers, the New York Tribune says:—ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.1

We do not know that their opinion has been asked; nor do we suppose that such opinion, if it were adverse, would affect the consummation of the bargain. There are those who will say that it is cynical and immoral thus to dispose of people without their consent. But logically there is nothing else to do, save to leave them in utter barbarism. But if once we enter in to civilize such lands in any measure, to develop their resources, to trade with them, and to make them safe stations on the world’s routes of travel and of commerce, then sooner or later we must exercise civilized control over them, whether with or without their consent. There is no other course. We may regret and deplore the suppression of the native races and their customs before the advancing tide of civilization; but to do so is to regret the inevitable. It is the action of a stronger law than that of statute or of treaty, the primal and inexorable law of the survival of the fittest, which is the essential law of progress in mollusks and in man, in families and in nations.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.2

Along with that read this: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” And these “free and independent States have power to... and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.”ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.3

These two statements can not possibly stand together; the second is republican principle of the Constitution of this nation; the first is repudiation of it. “When our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, then we may know that the end is near;” and “this apostasy may be a sign to us.”ARSH November 28, 1899, page 773.4

“Back Page” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 76, 48, p. 780.

IT is announced that “early in December,” Archbishop Chappelle, apostolic delegate to Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines, will depart for the Philippines, to investigate all matters concerning “the church” there. It is also stated in the announcement that in his capacity of “apostolic delegate” he “has been commissioned by the President” of the United States “to submit to the Filipino insurgents, in general terms, certain propositions of peace.” Now it is the orders of the Catholic Church that is one of the principal causes of the trouble in the Philippines. And if anybody thinks that the sending there of a chief official of the Catholic Church, to investigate matters of difference with the Filipinos, and to propose terms, is likely to be favorably accepted by the Filipinos, he must have a queer idea of justice. In matters of dispute, it has hitherto been considered as hardly the proper thing to select a chief partizan in the dispute as an agent to settle the dispute. But now such an arrangement seems to be just the proper thing. And since this agent is the agent of both the church and the state, is it not certain that the state will be involved in whatever settlement is made by the church? And will not that just as certainly be the union of the church and the state—and that the Catholic Church? Rome is steadily getting in her work, and in most satisfactory shape for her.ARSH November 28, 1899, page 780.1