A

N editorial in the Baltimore Sun

of Nov. 28, 1920, deals with the Sunday bills now pending before Congress, and with the harmful policies of the sponsors of this dangerous kind of legislation, and is very illuminating upon this much agitated religious controversy. We recommend a careful reading of this fine, logical editorial upon "The Uplifter: "

"As abstract doctrine something may be said for this point of view. But considering the application which Dr. Kelly was making of it

- he was discussing such matters as moving pictures, Sabbath observance, gambling, and the use of tobacco-how monstrous it is! He is defending the right of a minority to dictate to the majority in matters of conscience. It is by such logic that the Inquisition was defended. It is the logic of the witch burners.

It is the logic which makes a mockery of religious toleration. Dr. Kelly and his allies would throw us back to the Middle Ages.

"It is a doctrine which, when carried into effect, makes lawbreakers of millions of our citizens. The object of the uplifters is to make people good by law. But no man upon whom such laws are imposed by the activities of a minority regards them as binding in conscience. A law to be effective must be regarded by the people generally as something embodying principles to which all right-minded people adhere. Such are the laws against theft and arson and murder. All right-minded individuals agree that these things are crimes and should be prohibited. But when the attempt is made to classify as crimes actions which the mass of the people do not regard as crimes, the thing becomes preposterous. Laws against such offenses will never be generally observed.

"Consider this statement [from Dr. Kelly]: "It is not always what the majority wants that is best for it. License unlimited and unbridled is not good for men any more than it is for children. There never was anything more false than the expression, "Vox populi, vox Dei." It is a heathen doctrine. The voice of the people is not the voice of God. Our people in the mass do not govern. We have a representative government. We elect men to represent definite masses of men, and these representatives are supposed to determine what is best by reflection and sober thinking, not by what they think the mass wants."

"Consider Dr. Kelly's profound elucidation of the theory of representative government. Consider it in the light of the facts. Even as abstract doctrine it is faulty; for while it makes due recognition of the fact that this is a representative government, it does not sufficiently consider the fact that it is a representative democracy. But admitting that it is true that we elect representatives who are supposed to determine what is best by reflection and sober judgment, not by what the mass wants,' will any one contend that the action of the rep

resentatives of the people on the class of questions that Dr. Kelly is interested in, has been determined by reflection and sober thinking? Doesn't every one know that it has been determined purely by the political pressure put upon these representatives by the class which Dr. Kelly represents, and that reflection and sober thinking have had nothing to do with it? Dr. Kelly denies that he is a hypocrite. We gladly concede the fact; he is essentially honest and sincere. But there is something hypocritical about this kind of reasoning.

"What is the explanation of this phenomenon of the uplifter? Is it the one suggested by Macaulay when he said that the Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectator? Or is it to be explained on the theory of religious mania? The growth of the species in this country demands a more complete scientific study of it than has yet been made.

"If Dr. Kelly and his associates are sincere, as we gladly concede the mass of them to be, then one fact should have weight with them. That is the fact that their fundamental assumption that men can be made moral by law is false. They cannot be. The man who is forbidden to go to a symphony concert on Sunday afternoon, will not go to a Sunday school instead. The man prohibited from getting liquor, will not get religion in its place. On the contrary, individuals treated as are these, will develop a resentment which will make them more hostile to the reforms beloved by the uplifters than they otherwise would be. Dr. Kelly showed that he is not wholly insensible to this truth when he talked of this being a matter for persuasion, for friendly discussion,' for bringing the other fellow around to his way of thinking. What he fails to see is that this method is utterly antagonistic to the other method of legal prohibition. The one defeats the other. Persuasion and compulsion do not go together. There is a great deal of truth in many of the contentions of the uplifters. Men can be persuaded and convinced by friendly discussion and by education. But the day of persuasion and conviction can only be delayed by strong-arm methods.

"There is also a great deal that is fallacious in the contentions of the uplifters. It isn't conceivable that any tremendous proportion of the American people will ever again be brought to believe that there is anything sinful in listening to a symphony concert on Sundayor watching a ball game or playing in one. The whole trend of modern thought is for greater instead of less liberality in this direction. To be effective, the reformers must learn to distinguish between what is sound and what unsound in their program.

"This brings us to a question which is agitating a great many people at the present time, in

view of the large policies being proposed by the more extreme and more obsessed element among the uplifters. How far can they go in the direction of restoring the blue laws and making rational enjoyment legally prohibitive? Unquestionably they can do a great deal in specific communities—in the District of Columbia, for instance, where the Congressmen who have the power to impose restrictions are not responsible to the citizens of the District, and who may see in rigid laws for that territory an opportunity to gain support of the uplifting element at home. For this reason the nature of their program, its unreasonableness and its harmfulness, should be clearly exposed.

"But we do not believe that that program, generally, will ever be put into effect. All the fears expressed that it may be are predicated upon the analogy between this new movement and the prohibition movement. But there is a vital difference between them. Although a majority of the people of many communities were opposed to prohibition, a majority of the whole people was unquestionably in favor of it. It was supported, not by the uplifters alone, but by many other classes, particularly by manufacturers and operators of large industries who felt that prohibition would benefit them in their businesses. Without this support, prohibition could never have been enacted into law. There is no apparent reason to believe that the support of these classes can ever be secured for the blue law movement, or any similar movement; and it is probable, therefore, that these movements will not have the easy sailing that prohibition had. It is too early then, for lovers of personal liberty to despair. But that is no reason why they should not fight this new movement energetically." 济济济

The Blue Law Reformers

E'

IGHT years ago we heard a good deal about the "invisible government." At the same time there was another extraconstitutional power in the country not hidden exactly, but of low visibility. It was exercised by a group of terrorists, who played upon the fears of Congressmen. And now it is in the open. The International Reform Bureau, which for more than twenty years has been a meddler in the affairs of state at Washington, no longer "pussyfoots." Members of it boldly announce the determination to take over, in part at least, the police power and exercise it; to assist in obtaining re

A

济济济

Another Crusade

LTHOUGH it is generally understood that no legislation of importance is to be undertaken at the forthcoming short session of Congress aside from passage of the necessary appropriation bills, representatives of various reform organizations are framing a program to be submitted immediately, looking to the purging of the world of sin and making a very substantial advance toward the millennium. Some of the objects they seek are most praiseworthy, such as the elimination of gambling and of the traffic in narcotic drugs.

But at least one of these reform societies is intent also upon the enactment of a law which would make it unlawful to engage in athletic sports, such as baseball and golf, to open the picture shows or theaters, or to give picnics, dances, or entertainments of any kind on Sunday. In short, they aim to make effective throughout the nation the Puritanical blue laws of a former period.

This, in brief, is the program of the "restless sects" that aim to reform the world by force. Sitting upon the grave of Old John Barleycorn in a ceaseless vigil to keep him from a premature res

urrection, they are planning new activities for the moral rejuvenation of this wicked old universe, and incidentally making a good living by coaxing contributions from well-meaning people.

There is some ground for the fear that Congress may yield to the demands of reform organizations that are advocating a Puritanical Sunday and may enact legislation which will put a quietus upon all kinds of Sabbath diversions and recreations. Those persons who do not recognize Sunday as their day of worship may find their religious freedom somewhat curtailed.

There always looms the possibility of a Constitutional amendment to compel Sunday observance. The basic law has been amended twice recently, and the process has become so easy that a Constitutional change is not taken seriously. Consequently the twentieth amendment may be on its way, providing for compulsory religious observance and worship.

The modern crusaders are in the saddle and riding hard, with lances poised and banners flung to the breeze. Perhaps Congress will muster courage to resist their onslaught and stand firmly for individual liberty. Perhaps Senators and Representatives will not scurry to the safety of the cloakrooms when the invaders come clattering through the corridors. Perhaps they will take a broad, sane, reasonable view of the questions raised. Let the nation cherish the hope in spite of the record.- Washington, D. C., Post, Nov. 29, 1920.

济济济

THE town of Nyssa, Oreg., submitted the question whether the town should have a compulsory Sunday observance ordinance, to the people on the referendum. The people of Nyssa voted the compulsory Sunday observance down, Nov. 2, 1920, by a majority vote of two to one. The people still believe in religious liberty. The referendum so far has contributed to the cause of freedom.