CORRESPONDENCE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XIV, Issue 2898, 14 February 1893, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

(We do not hold Qiraelws responsible for the qpifjipfis axpteaed by our correspondents.]

SUNDAY HARVESTING.

TO THE BDITOB. iSiHi—l was surprised and pained to find ill the. GitahdJAN of Saturday ("Current; T-ctpiss *') th>t ygu used *' the ox and the ass being, taken out of the pit on the Sabbath Day ** m argument for Sabbath labor in the fields. A man was healed of the dropsy. To prove that that was lawful our Lord i instanatd fhg readiness of the objectors to render help to beast* gf biirdjn when in pain, much more might a map, who was of more value, be healed. It was always lawful to do gsod on the Sabbath Pay. It wm never lawful to pursue ordinary labor on that day 5 harvesting was strictly fqitydflen. Bsodußl s*SJY., 2J, Un earrina time and harvest thou shalt rest," Jf ghMt had even implied the violation qt that la^ Jf« would h»vo given His v»tehful «qeoue« % chance agaiwt Him. Neither in letter nor in spirit did He break the JHvwa PQmmand. I was brought up in the North of Ireland, where the Sabbath was observed and have seen the benefit of it. . The Sabbath law, I t#ji6 it, is a test of obedience ana with in ( (ios. Surely these are fur the good of a nation And 1 ought; £p b3 pneouraged. But once obcourftge Sifebath Jafiof>»*■%s Lord's Day would soon he us4S l<fV biisiuoss I should be yepy «n»rrjr -%<t a#e my children! accustomed to sights of labor gn jtqe Sabbath P*JT| an 4 wpul4 ©ftrneitly bop* th*t n«wi' I

paper editors and employers of labor would rather help us to preserve this valuable boon to the woi king man.—lam, , '.'. ' A Moihkb. r Ashburtoo, February 13. • - .»-

TO THC EDITOR. Sib,—l shall be glad if yon will allow me to correct some statements made in your "Current Topics" oa the above subject. You no doubt made the statements in good faith, but your information is evidently- at, fault. I do not wish at present to discuss the religious or moral bearing* of the subject, but when you told as in your issue a fortnight ago that with most farmers the preceding Sunday had been a day of harvestI ing, and again on Saturday last that on nearly every farm in this county harvest work had been more or less openly done on Sundays, I made up my mind to find but if these statement* were oorrect. My work takes <■■.<■ through a large part of the farming disu.cts of the couoty en Sundays, and , I nave made careful enquiries' both from. formers and from those whose duty, like my own, have taken them through the county on Sundays during' this harvest,-and both my own observations and the most reliable testimony that I can obtain warrants my saying that Sunday harvesting has been this year the exception and not the rule.' On January 29, the Sunday specially referred to by you, in one of the principal grain growing districts in the county only three •' reapers could be found at work, and a ' gentleman who travelled twenty miles in another direction on the same day assured two farms. This proportion was exceeded in some other districts, but these illustrations are sufficient to show that your statements as to work being general on that day are not borne out by the facts of the case; and the same is true of other Sundays. Moreover, my enquiries lead me to the conclusion that more Sunday harvesting is done on a few of the large estates than by all the small farmers in the county put together," and I am told that on some of these large estates men have been offered double pay to induce them to work on Sundays. * Yours, etc*, S. Lawry. Ash burton, February 13,