“2. _The sin of these Congressmen is a national sin_, because the nation has not said to them in the Constitution, the supreme rule for our public servants, ‘We charge you to serve us in accordance with the higher law of God.’ These Sabbath-breaking railroads, moreover, are corporations created by the State, and amenable to it. The State is responsible to God for the conduct of these creatures which it calls into being. It is bound, therefore, to restrain them from this, as from other crimes; and any violation of the Sabbath, by any corporation, should work immediate forfeiture of its charter. And the Constitution of the United States, with which all State legislation is required to be in harmony, should be of such character as to prevent any State from tolerating such infractions of fundamental moral law. “3. Give us in the National Constitution the simple acknowledgment of the law of God as the supreme law of nations, _and all the results indicated in this note will ultimately be secured_. Let no one say that the movement does not contemplate sufficiently practical ends.”—_Christian Statesman_, Vol. 6, No. 15. Now let it be borne in mind that the question at issue is one of _practical bearing_, and not of mere technical distinction. We are not splitting hairs as to what _consistency would demand_ under certain circumstances; but the matter in dispute is, Is it not in the highest degree probable that a party, represented by men who express, beforehand, sentiments like those contained in the above editorial, would, when having vaulted into the seat of power, attempt the coercion of all into a strict observance of the Sunday? Is not the line of argument employed above that which would _compel them to this action_, since it is there insisted that God holds the nation and the State responsible for any dereliction in duty in this direction? Furthermore, is it not _promised_, in so many words, that if the amendment is carried, the end desired shall be secured by statutes so relentless that all offending corporations shall have their charters taken away, and by a public opinion so uncompromising that no man who presumes to violate the Sabbath law shall be thought worthy of any position of trust? Thirdly, Waiving, for the time being, the point that the Sunday and the amendment stand together, it is urged that, though they do, this should not prevent seventh-day observers from supporting the latter, since it is better to submit to Sunday laws than to have the nation pass into the hands of atheists. Before debating this proposition at length, it will be well to bear in mind that what I have said in the _Statesman_, as well as what I now say, is spoken simply with reference to one occupying the position of a Seventh-day Adventist.