opening mail bags. Does any man want more than this to insure the delivery of his letters on Sunday, if required?

The clause to be repealed is not only unnecessary, but seems to clash with the rest of the section. For, first, Congress gives the Postmaster-General full power to say how many hours in a day his deputies shall attend at their offices; and, in the clause to be repealed, they say to the deputies, at all reasonable hours." Suppose the parties should disagree about “reasonable hours?" It might be asked, why did Congress think it necessary to make a law compelling deputy Postmasters, and not the mail contractors, carriers, and drivers, to labor on Sunday? The same power is given to the Postmaster-General, touching the delivery of letters, papers, &c., without this clause, that is given him in the case of sending the mail (as he does) through all parts of the land, as often as he may think best. And does he find any difficulty in obtaining men to carry and change the mail on Sunday, though Congress has made no law requiring the mail contractor and mail carrier to obey the instructions of the Postmaster-General? And have those who wish the mail distributed reason to believe, if this clause were repealed, the deputy Postmasters would, from conscientious scruples, refuse to deliver letters, &c., on Sunday, after they had changed the mail on that day? and, also, that the Postmaster-General could not obtain men for the different offices who would obey his instructions, as readily as he does mail contractors, carriers, &c.? Now, the mail is carried and changed on that day, without any law requiring it; and the same, doubtless, would be true respecting the delivery of letters, &c., though the clause were repealed; provided the PostmasterGeneral should continue, to his deputies, the instructions already given.

Yet

And why need any person object to the repeal of the clause specified? Certainly no one need. But it is to be feared that those who would destroy the Sabbath and the Christian religion, (and consequently our republican institutions,) will object. it is ardently hoped, since they would not be unfavorably affected were the prayer of the petition granted, that they will consent to its repeal, and thereby gratify hundreds, and hundreds of thou

sands of their fellow citizens, no less anxious for the prosperity of our country than themselves.

The Postmaster-General, following the steps of his predecessors, has already assumed the responsibility of directing the mail to be carried, and changed, and delivered, on Sunday, and it is presumed that he will not insist on retaining this clause on his account. Neither is it believed that he will say it is at all necessary, in order to the delivery of letters, papers, &c., on every day of the week, and at such hours as he shall think proper to direct.

My anxiety on this subject is very great; and I am admonished by declining health that this may be my last appeal in behalf of this institution. And must I be carried from time, so long as this clause remains among the laws of our country, blazing its absurdities over all Christendom, and soliciting divine judgments? It seems to me that I cannot. Why cannot even those in favor of Sunday mails, since this clause is unnecessary, and since so many respectable citizens desire its repeal, grant the request of the petitioner on these grounds, if on no other; avowing, at the same time, if they choose, their preferences in the case?

Repeal this clause, and Congress would compel no man to labor on Sunday. If labor were done on that day, it would be the act of an individual; and the shield now around the Sabbath-breaker, rendering him invulnerable to all appeal, would be broken; for no man could then say to those wishing to create a correct public sentiment," the supreme law of the land requires labor to be done on Sunday, and the Bible says, be subject to the powers that be. Therefore, I am justified in breaking the fourth commandment." Ánd this nation must answer for the evil done. Repealing this law will not close a single Postoffice on that day, unless the Postmaster-General and the people require it. The voice of the people, from time to time, through their President, who appoints the Postmaster-General, will control this thing; for like people, like President; like President, like Postmaster-General; and Congress having, by law, secured the free and unobstructed passage of the mail through the several States; the Postmaster-General, having all the power to determine

how often the mail shall go, and at what hours in a day each Postmaster shall attend at his office, for the performance of the duties thereof; and as there are men who are willing to labor on Sunday in that department, it is easy to see that there must be a change in his feelings and conduct, before there would be any change in regard to the mails, or the management of the different Postoffices, though this clause were repealed. I wish the repeal of this clause for the reasons already given, and because it appears to be the mainspring of the evil.

It stands in the way of all reform, and is construed as a license for all other kinds of labor, public and private, which companies or individuals, supremely worldly and selfish, choose to perform.

And this evil can scarcely be lessened, much less eradicated, while this clause stands unrepealed. And who will object to granting the request of this petition, since it will not affect, in the least, his interest in the matter of Sunday mails? For, I repeat, the repeal of this law will not directly effect the carrying or stopping, and opening and delivering, the mail on that day. All this would then, as now, be in the power of the Postmaster-General, appointed by the President, and he by the people. So that the people will determine the whole of this matter, as they should be left to do, without any law of Congress about it.

What can do more to blot out the light of that day than national law requiring its profanation, national example in its judges, rulers, and lawgivers? Let Congress now repeal this clause, and it will greatly aid in redeeming that institution from the disrepute into which it has undeservedly fallen. But let them refuse, and another blow is struck, which will tend to throw this nation into anarchy and confusion, natural and unavoidable consequences of forgetting God, and profaning the Sabbath.

Pious Members.

Many members of this body, if not all of them, believe in the divine appointment of the Christian Sabbath. And some of them have solemnly covenanted, in the presence of God, men, and angels, to keep holy that day, and do all they can to promote its observance. They have looked on this subject not only

as patriots and philanthropists, but as Christians. Here is a three-fold cord drawing them to its careful consideration; and surely, now it is presented, they cannot be silent spectators in this matter, they cannot treat with indifference any proper effort made, though it be by an individual, to obtain the better observance of that day; certainly they cannot lift up their voice against it. Would it not be sin, and desertion, and treason so to do? As well be silent if a law promoting blasphemy, and theft, and idolatry existed; quite as well, though the ill effects might not be, in this case, so sudden and perceptible, as in that.

A belief that a majority of Congress are in favor of this law, as it now stands, should not prevent every lawful and honorable means, on the part of those opposed to it, to obtain its repeal. For this institution may have more friends in Congress, and a love of consistency and right-doing a greater influence here, than may at first be imagined. And let it not be supposed that God will long suffer his day thus to be trampled upon by a people favored as we are. He will not, with impunity, suffer this or any other nation to blot out one of the commands of the decalogue, especially the one on which, more than on any other, depends the existence of his religion. No, God can never give up his Sabbath, though it cost the heart's blood of this nation to preserve it. His judgments may be deferred, but they will be none the less certain.

In despotic governments, and some that are somewhat democratic, the people may continue to enjoy a kind of prosperity, though they break the Sabbath. But who, that he might longer continue to pollute that day, would prefer their servile condition to our right of thinking and acting for ourselves?

Laws.

Giving the authority above referred to. "He (PostmasterGeneral) shall provide for the carriage of the mail on all postroads that are or may be established by law, and as often as he, having regard to the productiveness thereof, and other circumstances, shall think proper." (Sec. 1st in the act regulating the Postoffice establishment in 1810.)

Also in section 7th, "That if any person shall knowingly and

wilfully obstruct or retard the passage of the mail, or of any driver, or carrier, or of any horse or carriage carrying the same, he shall, upon conviction, for every such offence, pay a fine not exceeding $100." This clause secures the free passage of the mail on Sundays, if the Postmaster-General is disposed to send it, unless some of the States should claim the right secured to them by the Constitution, article 4th, sec. 4, which is as follows: "The United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against innovation," &c. Here we see that each State has a right to make and administer her own laws, provided they do not contravene the Constitution, or the laws of the United States, made in pursuance of it. No law, really promotive of the public good, will ever be opposed by consistent Christians.

Will Congress, when the Constitution guaranties to each State the right to make her own laws, provided they are in accordance with the supreme law of the land, refuse to repeal a clause, abridging that right? If so, is there any security that, by and by, "test acts" will not be multiplied, until, like Daniel, the religious man must violate the dictates of his conscience, or abandon every office under the Government? As the Postoffice Department is now managed, no consistent Christian can participate in its duties and emoluments. And, with that clause remaining, all have not equal rights. The irreligious man is aided, and the religious man excluded, voluntarily, it is admitted, for they rather obey God than man.

Among the AMENDMENTS to the Constitution, and equally binding, is the following: Article 1st, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof." Now place by the side of this and the other acts quoted above, the clause, "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, or paper, or packet, to the person entitled to, or authorized to receive the same," and see whether they are consistent with each other; see whether the conscientious Christian can be a Postmaster, and at the same time enjoy the free exercise of his religion. Can he enjoy equally with others the civil benefits of his country, so long as labor is re