More than this: those who worked for the
opening of the Fair pandered to the church interests precisely
as the others did in working for the shutting of it. As soon
a these things appeared in print I wrote a letter to Brother
A. Moon, sending him these marked passages, and I said to him,
"You can readily see that the reasons that are given by
these people for opening the Fair are precisely the reasons that
were given for shutting it. Now that being so, for us to join
with them would be to recognize the legitimacy of the legislation
and the reasons for the legislation, whereas every one of these
reasons is directly against everything that we have been working
for all these years in Congress. So this makes it plain enough
that we cannot put a single one of our petitions along with theirs.
We cannot take a single step along with them; we can not work
with them at all or connect with them in any way in the way they
are working or upon the reasons which they give for opening the
Fair. We will have to maintain the position that the legislation
is not and never was right at all. The only thing we can do therefore
is to hold that the thing ought to be undone. The only position
which we can take is that the Sunday part of the legislation
should be unconditionally repealed.
Brother Moon immediately replied that he
had seen these statements and had already taken the position
that I spoke of in my letter. You will remember that about the
same time I wrote an article which appeared in the Sentinel setting
forth the same facts and taking the same position; saying that
we did not care a turn of the hand whether the Fair was opened
or shut on Sunday but we did care more than could be told whether
the subject should be dealt with at all by Congress. Therefore
Brother Moon told the Chairman of the Committee and the gentlemen
who were managing that side of the question in Washington that
neither we nor our petitions could be counted at all in connection
with that movement. The Chairman of the Committee asked Brother
Moon what our position was. He told the Committee what our position
was and how many petitions there were there. Of course all the
names that were gathered upon that first petition, nearly four
hundred thousand, are just as good today as they were then, whenever
any congressman chooses to call them up and present them. They
are everlastingly against the whole thing. Therefore the Chairman,
when Brother Moon told him what our position was and the reasons
for it said to him: "You write out your position as regards
this legislation, and I will present it as a bill in the House
so as to give you a basis upon which to present your petitions
and for your arguments to be heard." Brother Moon, in that
room, dictated to Mr. Thompson of Chicago, what we desired, and
Chairman Durborow introduced it with his own name on it. Following
is the bill:
52d Congress H. Res. 177 2d Session In
the House of Representatives, December 20, 1892. Referred to
the Select Committee on the Columbian Exposition and ordered
to be printed. Mr. Durborow introduced the following joint resolution:
Joint Resolution to repeal the religious legislation pertaining
to the World's Columbian Exposition. Whereas the United States
Constitution specifically states that 'Congress shall make no
laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof'; Therefore be it-- Resolved by the
Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, That the act of Congress approved August
fifth, eighteen hundred and ninety-two, appropriating five millions
of Columbian half dollars to provide for celebrating the four
hundredth anniversary of the discovery of America by Christopher
Columbus by holding an international exposition of arts, industries,
manufactures, and products of the soil, mine, and sea in the
city of Chicago, in the State of Illinois, on the condition that
the said exposition shall not be opened to the public on the
first day of the week, commonly called Sunday; and also that
section four of 'an act to aid in carrying out the act of Congress
approved April twenty-fifth, eighteen hundred and ninety, entitled
An act to provide for celebrating the four hundredth anniversary
of the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus by holding
an international exposition of the arts, industries, manufactures,
and products of the soil, mine, and sea in the city of Chicago,
in the State of Illinois,' be, and the same is hereby, amended
so as to leave the matter of Sunday observance entirely within
the power of the regularly constituted authorities of the World's
Columbian Exposition.
Then that being understood that that was
introduced with the understanding and for the express purpose
of opening the way for us to present our petitions and to be
heard upon the question, we proceeded upon that idea. The arrangement
for the hearing was made. Brother Moon tells me that if the hearing
could have been had before Christmas he is perfectly satisfied
that we would have been heard; but the hearing was not appointed
until after the holidays, and Congress took a recess during the
holidays and when Congress reconvened it was discovered that
the Chairman of that Committee was another man altogether. I
was informed that he had a dinner with Elliott F. Shepard in
the meantime. Whether that had any effect upon his digestion
or some other part of his make-up I do not know. At any rate
that or something caused him to repudiate all that he had done
and shut out the principle which he had embodied in that resolution
and presented in order that we might be heard.
Dr. Lewis, the Seventh-day Baptist, went
to Congress to be heard. He told me that he went to Mr. Durborow,
the chairman of the committee, and asked to be heard. Mr. Durborow
asked him what he represented and what his argument was to be.
Mr. Lewis told him that it would be upon the point of the unconstitutionality
of the legislation already taken by Congress. Mr. Durborow told
him that the Committee had decided not to hear any arguments
at all upon the principle but only upon the policy of the legislation;
not to consider any question at all as to whether it was constitutional
or not, but that Congress had done it, and it was presumed that
Congress had the right to do it. And any mention as to the propriety
of the legislation would be entirely left out, and it was only
considered now as to whether it would be better policy for the
country to open the Fair or shut it on the Sunday that had been
adopted by Congress.
When that was done Dr. Lewis had nothing
at all to say, and made no calculation to say anything. But the
third day and among the last minutes of the day, Mr. Durborow
called upon him to speak, giving him five minutes. Dr. Lewis
told him that he did not have anything to say, that he did not
have his documents with them, and that he had no intention to
speak under the circumstances. But Mr. Durborow rather insisted
that he should, that he had five minutes to occupy if he chose.
So he occupied them though in rather a perfunctory way.
Samuel P. Putnam was there for the same
purpose, having several thousand of petitions in his pocket.
He is president of the Free Thought Federation of America. He
went to Mr. Durborow for a portion of time to be appointed him,
and he received the same information--that any arguments as to
the constitutionality of the question or the principle involved
was not to be considered at all, but only the policy of the legislation.
That being so, Mr. Putnam made no further request. But he likewise
was called upon to speak, but was given only a very few minutes,
which he occupied as best he could.
I did not get there long enough beforehand
to find all that out. Brother Moon knew it, but I did not have
a chance to talk with him. My train was late, and I arrived there
in time, by hurrying, to get to the committee room as the argument
was opened. So I did not have time to learn anything about the
situation at all. After the hearing Mr. Thompson of Chicago came
to me and asked me if I would take the balance of the time that
day, the last half hour. I had written to Brother Moon that whatever
arrangements they should make I would conform to when I got there.
I supposed that was the arrangement. I told Mr. Thompson if they
thought best I would speak that day, but I would like to wait
until after the American Sabbath Union had spoken, but if they
would rather, I would take the time. And so when I began I began
on the only thing I knew. It was to call in question the legislation,
but that was the thing they had decided not to have discussed.I
noticed immediately that they were restless. The chairman was
very restless. But I did not know what was the matter.
So I will take up the question right there
now. It is true that the chairman made a statement in opening
the hearing that I understand now, but did not then. He said:
The meeting today will be held for the
purpose of giving a hearing to those favoring the legislation
that is before the Committee. I think it would be proper to state
to the Committee that the present case is somewhat different
from the case as presented a year ago, and that the proposition
before the Committee is to modify existing law, not create law,
as was the proposition a year ago. Therefore the discussion before
the Committee on this occasion it is expected will be held very
closely within the lines of modification presented in the resolution
before the Committee, copies of which are on the desk and which
can be furnished to you, which provides for the modification
of the closing of the gates of the Columbian Exposition on Sunday
by permitting them to be opened under restrictions as stated
in these resolutions.
That expression, "Not to create law,"
was the statement that I did not understand then, but do now.
Well, it was fortunate in another sense
that I spoke that half hour, because there was no time afterward
when I could have had a half hour. The longest time occupied
by anybody after that was about twenty-five minutes, and the
most of the fifty-seven speakers had only an average of about
ten minutes allowed them.
Although the chairman shut out the argument
I was making upon the constitution, yet other members of the
Committee asked questions until the whole half hour was consumed,
and every one of their questions was presented in such a way
that I was compelled to strike the constitution and the unconstitutionality
of what they had done, in answering the questions. And so the
argument they wanted to shut out was presented in spite of the
efforts of the chairman. And the very things that he refused
to listen to from us were presented by others in a great deal
stronger way than we should or could have stated them. My argument
before the Committee is as follows:
Mr. Durborow: You have just thirty minutes
left, Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones: Mr. Chairman, I expect to speak in
favor of this legislation that is now before the Committee for
a larger number of reasons than could be given in the half hour
which I may have to speak, but I shall endeavor to touch upon
such reasons as have not been dwelt upon very particularly hitherto.
I shall start with one that has been touched by Mayor Washburne,
to some extent, but which may be referred to a little more fully,
and then I shall go from that to the consideration of other points.
My first point is that this subject, of
whether the gates of the World's Fair shall be closed or opened
on Sunday, is a subject with which the national government has
nothing at all to do. It is entirely beyond its jurisdiction
in any sense whatever. There are three distinct considerations--
Mr. Robinson: What church do you belong
to? Mr. Jones: I do not see what that has to do with the question.
Mr. Durborow: The gentleman certainly has the right to ask the
question. Mr. Jones: Is he a member of the Committee? Mr. Durborow:
Yes sir.
Mr. Jones: Very well; I beg your pardon.
I did not know that the gentleman was a member of the Committee.
I am perfectly willing to answer the question, though I cannot
see what bearing it has upon this discussion. I am a member of
the Seventh-day Adventist Church. But I speak here today as a
citizen of the United States and upon the principles of the government
of the United States. And I may say further that in the way that
Congress has touched this question, I may probably speak upon
it as a Seventh-day Adventist. As Congress has entered the field
of religion already, we have the right to follow it there, if
necessity should require.
What I was about to say is that three
distinct considerations in the Constitution of the United States
forbid Congress to touch this question. The first is well defined
by George Bancroft in a letter which he wrote Dr. Philip Schaff,
Aug. 30, 1887, which reads as follows:
"My Dear Mr. Schaff: I have yours
of the 12th. By the Constitution no power is held by Congress
except such as shall have been granted to it. Congress therefore
from the beginning was as much without the power to make a law
respecting the establishment of religion as it is now after the
amendment has been passed. The power had not been granted and
therefore did not exist, for Congress has no powers except such
as are granted, but a feeling had got abroad that there should
have been a Bill of Rights and therefore to satisfy the craving,
a series of articles were framed in the nature of a Bill of Rights,
not because such a declaration was needed, but because the people
wished to see certain principles distinctly put forward as a
part of the Constitution. The first amendment, so far as it relates
to an establishment of religion, was proposed without passion,
accepted in the several States without passion, and so found
its place as the opening words of the amendments in the quietest
manner possible. . . . George Bancroft"
This is shown by the Tenth Amendment to
the Constitution which says that "the powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people." As no power has been granted to Congress on
the subject of religion, that is reserved to the States or to
the people. That is where we ask that this shall be left, just
where the Constitution has left it. It is a question reserved
to the States. It is for the State of Illinois alone, so far
as any State can have anything to say upon the subject, to say
whether that Fair shall be opened or shut on Sunday. If the State
of Illinois should not say anything on the subject, it is still
left with the people. It is for the people in their own capacity
as such, to act as they please in the matter, without any interference
or dictation by Congress.
Not only is that so on that point, but
if the Constitution had not said a word on the subject of religion,
there would have been no power in Congress to touch this question.
But the people have spoken; the constitution has spoken and denied
the right of the United States government to touch the question
and has reserved that right to the States or to the people. Not
only did it do that but it went further and actually prohibited
the government of the United States from touching the question.
This lack of power would have been complete and total without
the prohibition, because the powers not delegated are reserved.
But they went further and not only reserved this power but expressly
prohibited Congress from exercising it. It is trebly unconstitutional
for Congress to touch the question. It was so at the beginning
of the government, and this is why we insist that this legislation
shall be undone, and leave it where the Constitution has left
it--to the States or to the people.
Mr. Houk: The language of the Constitution,
I believe, is that Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion.
Mr. Jones: I am going to follow this question
a little further and notice that amendment. The amendment does
not read, as it is often misquoted, "Congress shall make
no law respecting the establishment of religion"; but "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There are two meanings
in this clause. When the Constitution was made, all that it said
upon this subject was that "no religious test shall ever
be required as a qualification to any office or public trust
under the United States." Some of the States had established
religions at the time; I think all except Virginia. Virginia
had released herself in a campaign directly touching this question.
The first part of the clause was intended to prohibit Congress
from making any law respecting any of these religions which were
established already in those States, and the second part of the
clause prohibits Congress from touching the subject of religion
on its own part, in any way. In the State of Virginia from 1776--with
the exception of the interval when the war was highest--to December
26, 1787, there was a campaign conducted over the same question
that is now involved in this legislation.
The English Church was the established
church in Virginia, and the Presbyterians, the Quakers, and the
Baptists sent a memorial to the General Assembly of Virginia,
asking that as the Colonies had declared themselves free and
independent of British rule in civil things, so the State of
Virginia should declare itself free from British rule in religious
things and that they should not be taxed to support a religion
which they did not believe, nor even any religion which they
did believe. And the English Church was disestablished. Then
a movement was made to establish the "Christian religion"
and to legislate in favor of the Christian religion" by
passing a bill establishing a provision for teachers of that
religion. Madison and Jefferson took the opposition to that bill,
and by vigorous efforts defeated it, and in its place secured
the passage of a bill "establishing religious freedom in
Virginia," which is the model of all the state constitutions
from that day to this, on the subject of religion and the State.
Now then, that campaign in Virginia against
the establishment of the Christian religion there, embodied the
same principle that is involved in this legislation of today,
and as that was distinctly shut out, so we ask that this shall
be also and Congress and the government step back to the place
where it was before and where it belongs. Madison went right
out of that campaign into the convention which formed the Constitution
of the United States and carried with him into that convention
the principles which he had advocated in the campaign and put
those principles into the United States Constitution, and the
intention of all was, and is, that Congress shall have nothing
at all to do with the subject of religious observances.
Washington, in 1797, made a treaty with
Tripoli, which explicitly declared that "The government
of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian
religion." And when Congress has legislated upon this question
with direct reference to the Christian religion, therein again
it has gone contrary to the express intent of those who made
the Constitution and established the supreme law, as expressed
in their own words. And for this reason we ask that the thing
shall be undone and Congress put the government right back where
it was before that legislation was established, and leave the
question where it belongs.
Mr. Durborow: Your objections are simply
constitutional? Mr. Jones: There are some others, but the foundation
of all is the unconstitutionality of it. Those who sent up the
petitions here and those who worked for the movement in this
Capitol knew that it was unconstitutional when they asked it.
A gentleman who spent six months at this Capitol for this legislation,
has argued for more than twenty-five years, in print and in speech,
that any Sunday legislation by Congress or legislation in behalf
of the Christian Sabbath would be unconstitutional. And yet he
worked here six months to get Congress to do that without any
change in the Constitution. For twenty-five years, he, with the
Association to which he belongs, has been working to get an amendment
to the Constitution recognizing the Christian religion and making
this a "Christian nation" so that there would be a
constitutional basis for Sunday legislation. But now in the face
of that twenty-five years' history and work and in the face of
their own arguments, they have gone right ahead, and got Congress
to do it, when they knew it was unconstitutional.
Another reason why we ask the repeal of
it is that it was secured upon false representations. The representations
which they made to Congress in order to secure this legislation
were all false. They represented before Congress that the mass
of the people of the United States were in favor of their cause,
which has been demonstrated over and over to be false. It was
forcibly demonstrated in the city of Chicago not quite a month
ago. There the American Sabbath Union held a convention--a national
convention. They had four mass-meetings the first night of the
time in which the convention was held. One of those mass-meetings
I attended. It was reported in the Chicago papers, of which I
have copies here. I will read the Chicago report of it so that
it will be seen that I have not put any of my feelings into it.
The Chicago Tribune of December 14, 1892, had this report:
"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." Mr. Jones: This was not
the first instance of the kind, as some present here will remember.
Rev. W. F. Crafts: That's a good joke.
"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
Avenue and 33d 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:
"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, "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, "Whereas, there are seven
thousand saloons running open every Sunday, contrary to the State
law; therefore, be it-- "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. "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. "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. "There was applause
at the end, and then the chairman of the meeting, Rev. H. H.
Axrell, 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. "'All opposed will arise.' "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. "After a moment of wonder the chairman said
he would like to have some explanation for the action of the
majority." 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:
"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 the first three, resolutions were adopted in
favor of Sunday closing of the World's Fair. At the last the
resolution was defeated, the attendance, it is now claimed, being
principally of Adventists. That was the reason of the gloom which
pervaded the South Park Church yesterday. "The committee
appointed to prepare a telegram to Congress reported the following:
"'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.' "Dr. Mandeville was on his feet in an instant.
"'That should not read four mass-meetings, for one meeting
was opposed to the resolutions," he said. "It should
read three mass-meetings.' "'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.' "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."
And 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 reply, which I read here as a part of my argument
and which explains this point a little more fully before this
Committee:
"Chicago, December 17: Editor of
the Evening Post: I would not needlessly add to the afflictions
of the American Sabbath Union, but in justice 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. "But why should they denounce
us? Was it not--"
What 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 a mass meeting did they
expect to hold, anyhow? More than this, what kind of a 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 [Continued on next page] The 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.
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.
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.
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?
Mr. Durborow: I don't think your whole
argument is very respectful to the Congress of the United States.
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. I think I
had better give his speech right here. It is as follows:
SPEECH OF REV. H. W. CROSS BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE Mr. Durborow: Rev. H. W. Cross of Ohio will speak for
five minutes.
Rev. H. W. Cross: Mr. Chairman and gentlemen
of the Committee: The real object of my being here to speak a
word, is in favor of intellectual honesty on the part of the
orthodox churches. I am a minister of an orthodox church. I notice
in my territory that these church petitions are exceedingly delusive
as to the number of those that sign them or vote for them.
Now, for example, in one instance in our
State the Presbyterians passed a resolution, saying that we represent
so many, aggregating a certain membership; and then the Christian
Endeavor Society, composed of many of the same church members
alluded to by that Presbyterian church, will pass a like resolution,
and say we represent fifty, seventy, or one hundred members.
And then it will be brought before the Sunday school. And many
of the persons who are counted as voting for the resolutions
will have been counted three, four, or five times, and it is
almost on the principle of voting early and often--which is so
much opposed in secular politics. I am witness to this fact.
There was one petition claiming to represent eighty _________
[Continued] 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." church members that signed the petition
to Congress but they were not present at all. It was at a Sunday
school, and the vote was taken by the Sunday school superintendent,
and there were children that voted for those resolutions that
were not old enough to know whether the expression "World's
Fair" meant the pretty girls in the next pew or the Columbian
Exposition in Chicago.
[Part B]
[A. T. Jones Sermons Contents]
