’IT WAS VOTED DOWN

“The American Sabbath Union suffered a defeat last night at one of its meetings, which so surprised the leaders present, that the incident was a veritable sensation. It was an unexpected blow, and the more grievous because it was administered by one of the most sabbatarian of all Christian denominations.”CAR 20.1

Mr. Jones.—This was not the first instance of the kind, as some present here will remember.CAR 20.2

Rev. W. F. Crafts.—That’s a good joke.CAR 20.3

“The Union opened a national convention here yesterday afternoon, and made arrangements for four mass-meetings throughout the city last night to forward the movement. One of these meetings was held at the M. E. Church, South Park Ave., and 33rd St. It was a small mass-meeting, but everything went on smoothly for a time, and the ‘American Sabbath’ had everything its own way. Dr. H. H. George, a leader in the movement, Mr. Locke, and others advocated the closing of the World’s Fair on Sunday, and vigorously denounced the efforts of the directors and of the mayor and city council to have Congress repeal the closing act. These speeches were warmly if not unanimously approved by frequent amens and clapping of hands. No one looked for any opposition, and so the following resolutions were drawn up in a confident and emphatic manner:—CAR 20.4

“ ‘Whereas, We are informed by the Chicago press that our City Council, through the influence of Mayor Washburne, has appointed a committee of its members to go to Washington for the purpose of influencing Congress to reverse its action with reference to closing the World’s Fair on Sunday; and,CAR 20.5

“ ‘Whereas, The Chicago directors have opened headquarters in Washington for the same purpose, notwithstanding the acceptance of two and one half million dollars appropriation from Congress on the express conditions that the gates should not be opened to the public on Sunday; and,CAR 20.6

“ ‘Whereas, There are seven thousand saloons running open every Sunday, contrary to the State law; therefore, be it-CAR 20.7

“ ‘Resolved, First, That we enter a most earnest protest against such official action on the part of the mayor and city council, in using such measures in opposition to the action of Congress, and spending the people’s money in attempting to reverse the very conditions upon which the appropriation of Congress was received.CAR 20.8

” ‘Resolved, That we deprecate and condemn the action of the directors, who received the money from Congress upon condition that the Fair should not be opened Sunday (a bona-fide contract), and are now using all possible effort to influence Congress to set aside said condition.CAR 21.1

“ ‘Resolved, That in our judgment it would be more proper for the mayor and city council to close the saloons on Sunday in accordance with the State law, than to endeavor to influence Congress to open the Exposition Sunday, contrary to law.’CAR 21.2

“There was applause at the end, and then the chairman of the meeting, Rev. H. N. Axtell, put the resolutions to vote. To his and others’ surprise the ‘ayes’ and ‘noes’ seemed equal, with the volume of tone apparently in favor of the latter. The chairman then said, that a rising vote, would seem to be in order, and he requested all in favor of the resolutions, to stand up. The secretary counted thirty on their feet.CAR 21.3

” ‘All opposed will arise.’CAR 21.4

“The rest of the audience, with the exception of four who seemed to have no opinion on the matter, stood up, and the secretary looking astonished at the evident majority, paid little attention to counting heads, and declared that there were at least thirty-five against the resolution, and what seemed strangest was that many of them were women.CAR 21.5

“After a moment of wonder the chairman said he would like to have some explanation for the action of the majority.”CAR 21.6

Mr. Jones.—I was there and gave the reason why we were opposed to the resolutions. The next day in their convention this thing was called up, and quite fully considered. And so I read the report from the Chicago Times of the following day:—CAR 21.7

“Gloom pervaded the meeting of the American Sabbath Union yesterday morning. The unexpected set-back received at the meeting held at the South Park Methodist Church the evening before, had dampened the ardor of the delegates, and only a baker’s dozen were in their seats when the presiding officer of that session, Dr. H. H. George, of Beaver Falls, Penn., called the meeting to order. The cause of the depression was the outcome of the meeting the night before. Four mass-meetings were held Tuesday night. At three of these, resolutions were adopted in favor of Sunday closing of the World’s Fair. At the other, the resolutions were defeated, the attendance, it is now claimed, being principally of Adventists. That was the reason of the gloom which pervaded the Sabbath Union yesterday.CAR 21.8

“The committee appointed to prepare a telegram to Congress reported the following:—CAR 22.1

“ ‘The National Convention of the American Sabbath Union, meeting in this city, respectfully request our Congress, and especially the Committee on the World’s Fair, that no action be taken to repeal the Sunday-closing law. Mass-meetings were held in four different parts of the city last night to protest against this repeal as an act dishonorable to Congress and the nation.’ “CAR 22.2

“Dr. Mandeville was on his feet in an instant.CAR 22.3

“ ‘That should not read, four mass-meetings, for one meeting was opposed to the resolutions,’ he said. ‘It should read three mass-meetings.’CAR 22.4

“ ‘Yes,’ protested the committeeman, ‘but our resolution covers that point. It says the meetings were held to protest—it does not tell what they did.’CAR 22.5

“But Dr. Mandeville would not be hoodwinked by any double dealing of the sort, and the resolution was made to say that three mass-meetings vigorously protested against the repeal of the Sunday-closing law.”CAR 22.6

The Secretary of the American Sabbath Union for the State of Illinois wrote a correction to the Chicago Evening Post, in which he denounced those who voted against their resolutions as “brass interlopers,” and for having “massed their forces to defeat the object of this mass-meeting.” That opened the way for me to write a reply, which I read here as a part of my argument, and which explains this point a little more fully before this committee:—CAR 22.7

“Chicago, December 17.CAR 22.8

“Editor of the Evening Post:CAR 22.9

“I would not needlessly add to the afflictions of the American Sabbath Union, but injustice to the people denounced in Rev. Mr. McLean’s letter in the Evening Post of Thursday, as well as to bring that letter within the boundary of facts, Mr. McLean’s correction needs to be corrected. That he should not have a clear understanding of the situation at the South Park Church mass-meeting of Tuesday night, is not strange. He was not there. I was there, and therefore beg a little space to correct his correction. He states that the Seventh-day Adventists, “evidently supposing it would be a fine stroke of policy, in order to defeat the object of the meeting, massed their forces,’ from the region of the meeting, ‘with the result as published.’ This is a total misapprehension. There was not a particle of policy about it; there was no thought beforehand of defeating the object of the meeting; and our forces were not massed. That there was no massing of forces will readily appear to all from the fact that while there are one hundred and ninety-four Seventh-day Adventists in this quarter of the city, there were only about forty at the mass-meeting. And whereas, there are fully three hundred Seventh-day Adventists in the other three divisions of the city—west side, north side, and Englewood—there were none in attendance at the Sunday Union mass-meetings in those three quarters. If we had done as we are charged with doing, at least three, instead of only one, of their mass-meetings would have been carried against their resolution. Mr. McLean ought to be thankful that we are not so black as he has painted us, and that they escaped as well as they did.CAR 22.10

“But why should they denounce us? Was it not-” ^{4What I was going to read further was this:—
“Was it not advertised and held as a mass-meeting? Had we not a perfect right to attend it? And had we not a perfect right to vote against any resolutions that might be offered? When we went to the meeting, as the masses were expected to go, were we to keep still when called upon to vote? And to remain silent when directly called upon, both by the gentleman who offered the resolutions and by the chairman, to explain our vote? In view of these facts, is it the fair thing for them to denounce us as ‘atheists,’ ‘religious anarchists,’ ‘brass interlopers,’ etc., as they have done? What kind of mass-meeting did they expect to hold, anyhow? More than this, what kind of mass-meeting is that wherein forty people can ‘mass their forces’ and defeat the object of the meeting? In all their meetings they missed no opportunity to proclaim over and over that forty millions of the American people are on their side of the Sunday question. In the meeting that night Dr. George vehemently declared that on their side were forty millions, while there were only about twenty-five thousand of the Seventh-day Adventists in the United States. ‘Forty millions of us,’ he shouted, ‘and we are not afraid. Forty millions of us and we have the government on our side, and we are not afraid of anything that the Adventists can do.’ Now if the people were so overwhelmingly in favor of the work of the American Sabbath Union, how would it be possible for a few, in proportion of only one in sixteen hundred, either to pack their meeting or defeat their resolutions? If their own representations were true, they would have had the house full and the galleries packed with people in favor of the work of the Sunday Union, and it would be literally impossible for all the opponents that could be ‘massed’ to defeat the object of the meeting. But when the facts demonstrated that their own mass-meetings were so slimly attended that forty people could largely outvote them and kill their resolutions and ‘defeat the object of the meeting,’ this in itself demonstrates that their claim of an overwhelming majority of the people in favor of Sunday closing of the World’s Fair is a downright fraud. And this is what hurts them. As long as they can go on unmolested and uncontradicted in their misrepresentations, they are happy. But when an incident occurs that exposes the fraud in their claims, it grinds them.”}CAR 23.1

Mr. Chairman.—(Mr. Durborow)—I don’t want any more of such stuff as that. I do not see what bearing that has on this question. Please confine yourself to proper lines of argument.CAR 23.2

Mr. Jones.—It shows this, that their representation of forty millions of people—the masses of the country—is not true. When forty people can go to a mass-meeting and outvote them, it shows that the masses are not with them.CAR 24.1

Mr. Durborow.—We are here on a matter of changing some legislation. I think we might as well drop that. The congressmen undoubtedly knew what they were doing when they passed that bill.CAR 24.2

Mr. Jones.—I am not casting any reflection upon Congress in this. I am not saying that the Congress knew that these representations were false. But is it not possible for congressmen to be deceived, and seriously to consider representations which were false?CAR 24.3

Mr. Durborow.—I don’t think your whole argument is very respectful to the Congress of the United States.CAR 24.4

You see he shut me off from showing that these representations were false and said he did not “want any more of that stuff;” but he got it. Rev. H. W. Cross, a Presbyterian minister from Ohio went to Washington to make a five minutes’ speech. And the third day of the hearing, he set forth this matter stronger than I could have done. We think best to give just here his and other speeches on this point:—CAR 24.5