It is sufficiently painful, even to read over these remonstrances, without making extracts from them. Some are counterparts of R. M. Johnson's Reports; and can, by no consistent Christian, be supposed to deserve more respect, because of their unfairness and abuse, and the anti-Christian spirit which they manifest. That a State Legislature, professing to be governed by laws enacted, or sanctioned and enforced by penalties which themselves have fixed, should memorialize Congress to do the things, in their territory and throughout the nation, which they, by express statute, had forbidden to be done, is not a little surprising.

Hence we see the folly as well as danger of appointing those to legislate for the people, who have not sufficient moral principle and consistency of character, either to enact wise and wholesome laws, or to encourage the obedience of them. Indeed, any person who lends his influence in any way, to elevate to posts of honor and trust an immoral man, a Sabbath-breaker,— or an habitual transgressor of any good law,—is sinning against God and his country; and in the judgment, will be required to answer for the abuse of his elective franchise.

It is believed that even moral, exemplary men are not sufficiently aware of the responsibility devolving upon them in regard to this matter. They have not, as a general rule, given their suffrages, irrespective of party, political or religious, to men of good moral character; nor considered themselves under the most solemn obligation, as doubtless they are, to vote for such men only as scrupulously observe all those laws which serve to elevate and purify the morals of a people, while they contribute greatly to their civil and political prosperity.

Whenever immoral, unprincipled men are elected to make or administer the laws, there is a fault somewhere; and who have been the occasion of this evil? Who, at the last great day will be found most guilty? It is high time, that all men should understand their duty in relation to this thing, and never again give their vote for law-breakers-unprincipled, immoral men; for little or no good can be expected to result from such an act. And it is unwise, wicked, and dangerous to hazard, in this way, our most important interests.

Many have voted for one or the other of the nominated candi

dates, though against their better judgment and wishes, on the ground that the exigencies of the case not only call for their influence, but justify them in choosing between two evils. But this is neither right nor necessary. For whenever it is generally known that no good, moral man, in the nation, will, under any circumstances, vote for an immoral man, whether his immorality consist in violation of the laws of God or man, he will not be reduced to the alternative of supporting a dangerous man, or sacrificing his vote. In that event, suitable candidates would every where be presented for the suffrages of the people. Thus we might not only avoid the judgments of heaven for this national sin, but secure an invaluable and permanent good. Every Christian and every moral man is unquestionably in duty bound to sacrifice party views to the general good, and consequently is bound to vote for such candidates only, as are known to be friendly to pure morality and Christian institutions. How a professor of the religion of Jesus Christ, adopting the principles of that kingdom, which is righteousness and peace, can aid in elevating to office an opposer of that religion, and a practical nullifier of its precepts, is not to our mind explicable! He must first have abandoned his religion, at least in its high obligations.

The present condition of our nation calls loudly for this reform. When it is effected, men in high places will not be found on the slightest pretext to vilify the character, and oppose the consistent and benevolent efforts of the moral, law-abiding part of the community. All opposition to such efforts arises either from ignorance, mistaken views, or a bad heart, a heart which will not be restrained in its wicked propensities and passions.

The opposition with which good men have been called to contend, in their efforts to put away from this people the sin of Sabbath-breaking, should not, in the least, have deterred them; but on the contrary, should have stimulated them to greater vigilance and fidelity, in their remonstrances against the law which requires men to violate a plain command of God. Then, long ere this, their prayer might have been answered, and this great evil have been removed from our land.

Many of the committees who reported on this part of the Petitions, and more than one of the Postmasters-General, have ex

1

pressed an opinion that such a law was unnecessary, and recommend that it should be repealed. The Petitions of 1838 and 1839, which were respectfully received, printed, and referred, by both Houses of Congress, call for nothing more, than that Congress should repeal the law requiring Postmasters to labor on Sunday. And should not all the good people of this nation, earnestly and perseveringly ask for the same thing, until their request is granted.

PETITION OF HARMON KINGSBURY, of Cleveland, Ohio, praying the repeal of that part of an act of Congress regulating the Postoffice Department, which requires Postmasters to deliver letters, &c., on Sunday.

December 12, 1837.

Referred to the Committee on the Postoffice and Post-roads, and ordered to be printed.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled:

Your petitioner, Harmon Kingsbury, of Cleveland, Ohio, Respectfully showeth :

I come, not to ask pecuniary benefit for myself or others, nor to attempt to "unite Church and State," as was the cry (unkind as it was false,) when petitions were presented to Congress against labor on Sunday, in 1829 and 1830; nor to ask Congress to lay hands on the Church or on her enemies, or to make a law in favor of or against any command in the Bible; but I come to ask a nation's blessing; and, in behalf of the longinjured and much-desecrated Christian Sabbath, to implore Congress to take off those hands already laid upon the Church, in the act requiring labor on that day, which has well nigh driven the institution from our country; in a word, to repeal a part of section 9, in an act passed April, 1810, and re-enacted March, 1825, section 11, regulating the Postoffice establishment, which is in these words, viz: “And it shall be the duty of the Postmaster, at all reasonable hours, on every day of the week, to deliver, on demand, any letter, paper, or packet, to the person entitled to or authorized to receive the same;" that the institutions

of religion, in future, may be left as the Constitution left them, unaided and untrammeled by legislative enactments. I am encouraged, in presenting this memorial, by the reflection, that I am addressing patriots, republicans, and Christians; those who desire a nation's blessing, and the best interests of their constituents, as much as any petitioner can desire them; and also that party distinctions, heretofore existing, can have nothing to do in deciding this question. It cannot be a party question, unless Christianity and anti-Christianity be the dividing lines, which God grant may never exist in our halls of legislation.

Your petitioner is not alone in his prayer on this subject; but it is believed that nine-tenths of your moral, intelligent, influential, respectable, and peaceful constituents, among whom are many who do not believe in the Christian religion, seeing the deleterious effects of profaning that day, would immediately send to your honorable body their names and their complaints, but for the unexpected, and, as they think, undeserved treatment which they received on the occasion already alluded to. And, though their memorials have not been renewed, they could not be unconcerned spectators, while the evil has been increasing like a mighty torrent, rolling from one end of the land to the other, and threatening the destruction, not only of their religion, but of all republican institutions. No, they could not, and cannot now rest, while any of their fellow-citizens are compelled to violate a plain and an important precept of the Bible. And is not now a favorable time to gratify these constituents in their wishes, when there is no excitement on this subject, as there was when the question was before Congress in 1829 and 1830 ?

It need not be asked in this place, "Is there a Sabbath, and shall it be celebrated on the first day of the week?" for the Constitution took it for granted, and Congress has always taken it for granted; neither need it be inquired, "Should there be no law requiring its violation?"-for these are truths easily demonstrated from holy writ, and from the observation of every competently enlightened person.

There is a Sabbath. It is an ordinance from Heaven, lying at the foundation not only of the Christian religion, but of all true republicanism; and is alike binding upon all men, and should

be equally free to all. I shall not now attempt to sustain these positions by argument and proof, but shall also take them for granted.

The framers of the Constitution, and those who for many years administered it, doubtless had in their eye the first-day Sabbath and the Christian religion. They were legislating, not for Jews, Mohamedans, infidels, atheists, or pagans, but for Christians. And, believing the Christian religion the only one adapted to sustain and perpetuate the Government about to be formed, they adopted it as the basis of their infant republic. Reference to the following facts, (some of which were years ago collected by another,) it would seem, must convince any man of the correctness of this opinion. Yes, this nation had a religion, and it was the Christian religion. To meet the denial of this position, I adduce the following particulars; which may be found more minutely stated in Objection seventh, chap. 5—to which the reader is referred, viz:-Sabbath for the President— the delegates who adopted the Constitution kept the Christian Sabbath-Congressmen and others bound by oath to support the Constitution Bibles were printed by Congress to be distributed in this country. The designation of time," the year of our Lord:" judicial courts not to sit on Sunday, and Congress adjourned over that day: fasts were observed: and from language then used by them, it would seem that they believed in special judgments, and that such threatenings as are recorded in Isaiah xii. 60— "For the nation and kingdom that will not serve Thee shall perish: yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted," would be fulfilled. They served God politically, by enacting just, equal, and righteous laws; such as would be best for the people, irrespective of his religion, though not contrary to it. WASHINGTON once exclaimed, when it was told him that the British had attacked and killed a few Americans, "I mourn the loss of my countrymen, but rejoice that the British are determined to keep God on our side."

Days for thanksgiving were appointed. Legislative bodies may practice the duties of the Christian religion, and recommend them to others, without " uniting Church and State," and making test laws." Washington and the early Congresses felt