The Evening Star FRIDAY, MAY 29, 1874

Evening Star, Issue 3515, 29 May 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, MAY 29, 1874

A very noticeable improvement has taken place in the tone and character of the Provincial Council since the last election. The “ long-winded ” speeches about nothing in particular, which used to be the characteristic feature of a sitting of the Council, have been almost discontinued; personalities are only sparingly used, just enough to give a piquancy to a debate; it is no longer, apparently, the one object of every member’s life to show that all the members on the other side are no better than they should be. In short, what used to be something very like a bear garden, is now a very good specimen of what a deliberative assembly ought to be. The debates in the Council are now positively worth reading. It would perhaps be hardly worth while to make inquiries as to the cause of this remarkable change. Possibly, however, the fact that most of the undesirable members of the last Council were eliminated at the election of 1873, will serve to explain the important change which has undoubtedly taken place. The old members have gained experience, and the new ones are a decided improvement on those whom they have displaced. Be this as it may, there can be little doubt that the debate on the running of Sunday trains left very little to be desired. All that could be said on both sides of the question was said, and the result of the debate, if it fail to give satisfaction to all parties, cannot be said to have been arrived at without the maturest deliberation, and an evident desire on the part of all the members to do the best that could be done in the matter. There was one point very well brought out in the discussion, which deserves the attention of all those who are opposed to Sunday traffic of all kinds. It was this : if it be granted that Sunday traffic is an unmitigated evil, it follows that trains should still be run on Sunday afternoons. If Sunday work is in all cases to be avoided, as far as possible, it is evident that that plan should be chosen which will cause the smallest number of people to work on Sunday. Now it happens that a certain number of railway employes can give their own peculiar services to a larger number of popple at the same time than almost any similar number of other public servants, ex-

cepfc possibly clergymen, who can each minister to a very large number simultaneously. It is quite certain that if the trains to Port Chalmers ceased running, whose who now make use of the services of the railway employes would.set other people to work: we cannot suppose that even the most enthusiastic Sabbatarian believes that he can by Ordinance prevent people from trying to enjoy themselves in some way or other on the Sunday—that he can make them sit at home and “ bite their thumbs.” Other people, then, and many moi'e of them, would be set to work to minister to the enjoyment of those who now take a trip to the Port. Publicans, barmen, boatmen, livery stable keepers, cabmen, and a host of others would have to be employed in serving those who now are served by a few railway employes. Then, too, as was pointed out in the debate, cattle are provided for by the Fourth Commandment just as much as men are. If we take this as our rule in the matter, every horse has a sacred and inalienable right to one day’s rest in the seven, and as the Sabbatarians would say, this day must be Sunday. We have no right to assume that one part of the Fourth Commandment is more binding than another, any more than in the case of the Tenth Commandment we have a right to suppose that there is less sin in coveting one of the things mentioned than another. We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that a man’s horse, or indeed his ox, or his ass, if he have one, has just the same right to a complete day’s rest on a Sunday as himself. If, then, horses have a right to rest on Sunday, how can it be seriously supposed "that they ought to be made to work instead of the engines ? Of course we take for granted that the mere working of the engine per se does not amount to Sabbath desecration. Persons could hardly be found, we imagine, to maintain than an engine has a right to one complete day’s rest in the seven. It appears, then, that if we compare the amount of work done by the railway employes with the amount that would have to be done by other people and by horses if Sunday trains were abolished, we shall find that there is actually far less animal work done under the present system, than would be done if the Sabbatarians gained their point. In order to completely carry out the object they ostensibly had in view—the lessening of Sunday labor—it would have been necessary to make several other regulations, besides the one forbidding the running of excursion trains. Harbor steamers, cabs, and boats would have had to be prevented from running. Pub-lic-houses would have had to •be constantly shepherded by the police; in short, a tyrannical control over individual liberty would have had to be set up, of the sort which neither the present age nor the present generation of British people could for a moment endure.