length and breadth of the land, as a mighty accession to the Sunday-law movement. And, as a matter of fact, it is a mighty accession; but to what purpose? The following letter from the Cardinal to Mr. E. E. Franke, of Pittsburg, Pa., will show :

"CARDINAL'S RESIDENCE,

408 NORTH CHARLES ST., BALTIMORE, MD.,

Oct. 3, 1889.

"DEAR MR. FRANKE: At the request of His Eminence, the Cardinal, I write to assure you that you are correct in your assertion that Protestants in observing the Sunday are following, not the Bible, which they take as their only rule of action, but the tradition of the church. I defy them to point out to me the word Sunday in the Bible; if it is not to be found there, and it cannot be, then it is not the Bible which they follow in this particular instance, but tradition, and in this they flatly contradict themselves.

"The Catholic Church changed the day of rest from the last to the first day of the week, because the most memorable of Christ's works was accomplished on Sunday. It is needless for me to enter into any elaborate proof of the matter. They cannot prove their point from Scripture; therefore, if sincere, they must acknowledge that they draw their observance of the Sunday from tradition, and are therefore weekly contradicting themselves.

"Yours very sincerely,

"M. A. REARDON."

This shows that it is as a Roman Catholic, securing honor to an institution of the papacy, and thus to the papacy itself, that Cardinal Gibbons has endorsed the national Sunday-law movement. The Cardinal understands what he is doing a great deal better than Mr. Crafts, Mrs. Bateham, Mr. Blair, and Mr. Breckenridge understand what they are doing. And further, the Cardinal understands what they are doing a great deal better than they themselves do. This also shows that those who sign the petition for a Sunday law, as the Cardinal did, are honoring the papacy, as the Cardinal does.

CHAPTER VII.

THE WORKINGS OF A SUNDAY LAW.

WE have shown by the literature and the logic of this whole Sunday-law question, that if the movement should succeed, it would be but the establishment of a religious despotism in this country. We have shown by their own statements that the principles held by the National Reformers are essentially papal, and that in the carrying out of these principles, they deliberately make propositions that betray the spirit of the Inquisition. But we are not compelled to stop with the principles or the logic of the We have some facts which show that such is the only effect of the kind of Sunday laws these people demand, as embodied in the Blair Sunday bill.

case.

In 1885, Arkansas had Sunday laws reading as follows:

"SECTION 1883. Every person who shall on the Sabbath, or Sunday, be found laboring, or shall compel his apprentice or servant to labor or perform service other than customary household duties of daily necessity, comfort, or charity, on conviction thereof shall be fined one dollar for each separate offense.

"SEC. 1884. Every apprentice or servant compelled to labor on Sunday shall be deemed a separate offense of the master.

"SEC. 1885. The provision of this act shall not apply to steamboats and other vessels navigating the waters of the State, nor such manufacturing establishments as require to be kept in continual operation.

"SEC. 1886. Persons who are members of any religious society who observe as Sabbath any other day of the week than the Christian Sabbath, or Sunday, shall not be subject to the penalties of this act (the Sunday law), so that they observe one day in seven, agreeable to the faith and practice of their church or society."

In the session of the Arkansas Legislature of 1885, Section 1886 was repealed, by act of March 3. The object of those who secured the repeal of that section, was, as they said, to close the saloons. It was claimed that under cover of that section, certain Jews who kept saloons in Little Rock, had successfully defied the law against Sunday saloons, and that there was no way to secure the proper enforcement of the law without the repeal of that section. The legislators believed the statements made, and repealed the section as stated.

The history of the repeal, according to the journals of the Senate and the House of the Arkansas General Assembly, is as follows:

The legislature convened Jan. 12, 1885. January 24, Senator Anderson introduced a bill-Senate bill number 70 entitled, "A Bill to Prevent Sabbath-breaking," which was read the first time. January 26, it was read the second time, and referred to the Committee on Judiciary. January 31, it was reported back by Mr. Hicks, chairman of the committee, with the recommendation that it should pass. February 3, it was read the third time, and put upon its passage, and was carried by a vote of twenty-two to four. Absent or not voting, six. It was then sent to the House, and was read for the first time there February 3. The rules were then suspended; it was read a second time, and was referred to the Committee on Judiciary. Some amendments were offered, which were also referred to the committee, with the bill. February 24, this committee made the following report :

"MR. SPEAKER: Your Committee on Judiciary, to whom was referred the Senate bill No. 70, a bill to prevent Sabbath-breaking, beg leave to report that they have had the bill under consideration, and herewith return the same, with the recommendation that it be passed without amendment. THORNBURGH, Chairman."

February 27, the bill was read the third time in the House, put upon its passage, and was carried by a vote of sixty-three to twenty-six. Absent or not voting, six. The same day, the House notified the Senate that it had passed Senate bill No. 70. March 7, 1885, the act received the approval of the governor, Simon P. Hughes.

Bear in mind that the object of this movement was said to be to close the saloons on Sunday; and what discussion there was on the bill in both the Senate and the House, shows that such was the object, so far as the legislators understood it. But when the act was secured, and was framed into a law, not a saloon was closed, nor was there an attempt made, any more than before, to close them. Not one of the saloon-keepers was prosecuted. And in Little Rock itself, during the session of the legislature of 1887, when the law was in full force, up to the time of the restoration of the exemption clause, the saloons kept their doors wide open, and conducted their business with no effort at concealment, the same as they had before the act was passed. But, so far as we have been able to learn by diligent investigation, from the day of its passage, the law was used for no other purpose than to punish peaceable citizens of the State who observed the seventh day as the Sabbath, and exercised their God-given right to work on Sunday.

FIRST CASE.

Eld. 7. W. Scoles.

Eld. J. W. Scoles, a Seventh-day Adventist minister, had gone from Michigan to Arkansas in June, 1884, to assist Eld. D. A. Wellman in holding some meetings at Springdale, Washington Co. As the result of these meetings, quite a number of persons adopted the faith of that body, and practiced accordingly. In September, 1884, Eld. Wellman died, and Eld. Scoles continued the work in that place. In the winter of 1884-85, Eld. J. G. Wood went from Appleton City, Mo., to assist Eld. Scoles at Springdale. A church was organized in that place early in 1885, and the erection of a meeting-house was begun at once. In addition to his subscription to the enterprise, Eld. Scoles agreed to paint the house when it should be ready. Further than this, we have the words of Eld. Scoles himself. He says:

"I volunteered to do the painting as my share of the work, in addition to my subscription. I worked away at the church at odd times, sometimes half a day and sometimes more, as I could spare the time. The last Sunday in April, 1885, in order to finish the work so I could be free to go out for the summer's labor with the tent, and expecting to go the next day twenty miles, I went over to the church, and finished up a small strip of painting on the south side of the house, clear out of sight of all public roads; and here I quietly worked away for perhaps two hours, in which time I finished it, and then went home. It was for this offense that I was indicted."

At the fall term of the Circuit Court held at Fayetteville, Mr. J. A. Armstrong, of Springdale, was summoned before the Grand Jury. He was asked if he knew of any violations of the Sunday law. He said he did.

Grand Fury.
Armstrong.

every Sunday."

"Who are they?"

"The 'Frisco Railroad is running trains