The Evening Star THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 1874

Evening Star, Issue 3407, 22 January 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 1874

The Presbyterian Synod, no doubt with the best intentions in the world,* have arrived at certain resolutions regarding what they term the desecration of the Sabbath; and have expressed their determination to poll the Province in order to influence the Provincial Government to prohibit running Sunday trains on the lines of railway. We have nothing whatever to say against their ideas of what they term “Sabbath observance.” That should be purely ah individual question; for no man nor Church can be answerable for‘the manner in which another fulfils his religious duties. We.object, therefore, to any attempt on the .part of a corporation whose mission is purely spiritual, to interfere with social arrangements in such a ; way as to fetter that liberty which every man has a right to : the' liberty to spend his Sunday in that way which his conscience will allow. The reply to this will be, that it is just that liberty they seek to secure for the employes bn the railway; and the Reputation that waited on the Superintendent, as well as the speakers in the. Synod \ made a great point of it that the running of Sunday trains necessarily prevented engine-drivers, stokers, guards, and managers from attending public worship, and deprived them of the advantages of that day of rest which is necessary to the moral and physical health of every human being. It .is not at all needful to say one word about the truth or fallacy of the last two lines of the propositions. We may even admit them to be true, and still not condemn the continuance of running Sunday trains ; for when the arrangements are explained it will be evident to Everyone that the clergymen have not made themselves acquainted with the facts of the case ; and that the railway officials, for whose special benefit they have put themselves to all this trouble, have actually more liberty and opportunity for rest than the reverend 'gentlemen claim for them.

Turning to the Railway Time Table, and examining the hours for arrival and departure of trains, it will be seen that they leave and arrive at such hours as give full opportunity for everyone in the employ to attend morning and evening service. The Church Services commence at II in the morning and 6.30 in the evening; the trains leave Dunedin at 9.30 a.m., 3.30 p.m., and 3.45 p.m., and Port Chalmers at 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. ; and as each train is only about twenty minutes on the journey, there is ample opportunity for attending public worship both by passengers and railway servants. Then as to the day of rest, the arrangement stands thus : the drivers and stokers, who do duty on Sundays, are required to attend only on alternate Sundays, and their work is much lighter on those days than on other days in the week. But this is not all. The, Government, instead of depriving them of a day of rest, actually give one to them; for those men .who attend on the Sunday, have a holiday on the previous Saturday—a privilege which we have reason to believe they

will feel it a great hardship to be deprived of. It will be seen from this statement that, so far from extra labor being thrown upon those men, they have less to do than would be the case were the Sunday trains stopped. .'' s -. Another point pressed by the clergy - was that there was a reduction of fares on the Sunday; thereby offering a temptation to persons to travel on that day. This too is a mistake. The only difference between Sunday and weekday trains is that while during the week there is a classification of passengers, on Sundays all carriages are considered equal. This is not attained by bringing the highest fares down to the lowest week-day -fare, but by raising the lowest Week-day fare sixpence, and reducing the highest a similar sum. The result is, supposing sixpence to operate as a deterrent to travelling, that there is a balance against the lowest class. As for the other, objections, the only legitimate way of meeting them is .by creating public opinion on the subject. Were the teaching of the Church accepted as true, and private judgment remitted to the Church for decision, there would be no need for seeking legislative interference in the matter. It is because that teaching does hot carry conviction with it—nor is it very;, likely it ever will, when exhibited in so offensive a form —that so Ipge a proportion of the population rebel against it. We think the , clergy would do more wisely to confine their exertions to rendering their doctrines popular, than by' attempting to enforce, perhaps a minority—but if so a very large proportion of the population—-to submit to the dictation of a majority in a matter of controversial religion. At any: rate, in any appeal made to the Province, they, are bound to lay the true state of the case before those whose votes they ask, or to incur the odium 6f obtaining them tinder false pretences.