THE Daily Southern Cross

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXX, Issue 5157, 2 March 1874, Page 2

THE Daily Southern Cross

LUCK), NOX VKO. If I ba\obrcn eMn^in .liei", jet tlicre n c o A tl.ji.saml bca< w liom tl.u b[ ». ii I boro

MONDAY. MARCH 2, 1874.

SUNDAY TRAINS.

The method adopted by those opposed to the running of Sundny truiuR, for obtaining due ventilation of their opinions and objections, was a perfectly locitimato and Constitutional course. The right of petition to Parliament is the inalienable right of every British subject ; and seeing that Parliament is not now in session, what remained to the objectors but to appeal, by deputation, tothemmist«rs who providentiully happen to bo present on the spot ? This is what these gentlemen did, in pursuance of a selfimposed duty, arising, doubtless out of a love for the souls and bodies of their felloe -men. There arc some v,ho would prefer adopting a compulsory process to save from perdition those whoso perception of what constitutes every -day morality differs from their own. Still while duly appreciating that affectionato caro and kindliness, there may be men ungrateful enough to think that after all, the efforts of the anti-railway gentlemen were nothing short of an interference with their own private convictions, and an attempt to restrict thtir liberties. The deputation which, as representing the Sunday School fFnion, waited on Mr. Vogel on Saturday, expressed a hope that the Sunday traffic on tha railways in this province), when the General Government took over the lines, on the 1st of

April next, fehould be abolished, if any one should cleoin the da) suggestive of the labour, he will at lenst not fail to observe that the ideas of the deputation are very much toned down, aa compared with those which a few weeks ago found somewhat rampant expression. Then niTectives that might be termed fierce were launched against the Sunday trains, and ntrong denunciations wore employed ngaiust those who advocated them, and it appeared that no compromise would be tolerated. Strange too are the mutations which tho anti-Sunday train principle has witnessed in its basis within tho last few weoks. At first, it was objected tn — especially in tho South — because the day was desecrated, and tho work of tho Lord — as it was undertaken by many ministers — suffered from this and collateral causes. '1 his ground was afterwards abandoned, and the great hardship of any mon being robbed of their one day's rest in seven (although Sunday railway trains need not involve such deprivation) was marlo the ground work of appeal. -Now, practically, this too ia abandoned . and, in fact, everything like a principle is ceded : and the deputation contented themselves by asking that the trains be restricted to one each way on Sundays, starting in the morning and returning in tho evening. After this concession there is no question of principle left. The trains run, if even but two, — peopletravel,—a fow workmen are employed, just as for years was, and is the caso with the steam ferry-boats which still run on Sundays, and about which no one has been inilieted with a deputation. Mr. Firth and his coadjutors m their well meaning crusade appear to forget that if sin it be, as it has been argued, to run trains on Sundays, the sin is not lessened because only two instead of six trains are run. They would fain, it is true, stop them altogother, and would profor sending people to perambulato tho Domain. It would seem by this that if it is only peripatetic enjoyment there is no desecration ; it is in the ride by rail the sin lies. But where is there any difference in the principle ? And look at the fact of the keepers in tho Domain gardens being compelled to take sacriligious sixpences from Sunday visitors who go to see the flowers, the fruits, the pheasants and tho monkeys, which grow and crow and cackle within the spacious grounds. Mr. Yogel's views are much the samo as those w Inch hare been expressed in our columns lately. Tho railways are public property, and the Government will be guided in their Sunday working according to the demand of the public. To take another course, and prohibit running, would be in prmciplo precisely the samo as if any Govcrnmontor public bridge was not to be passed by any traveller on Sunday except lie could bIiow that he was either going to or from church, or proceeding on an errand of necessity or mercy. That is really a parallel caso with the claim made that, the railway being public properfcy.theGovernment are entitled to stop it on Sundays. But it is needless to argue the subject further. Mr. Voijel, who has a happy knack of hitting blots, and making what seems a casual event tell as a strong point, did both in replying to tho deputation. He pointed out the conspicuous absence of the Bishop of Auckland, irom the deputation wo waited on him, and hazarded the opinion, a correct one we believe, that JJr. (Jowie does not sym pathise with the anti-Sunday train movement, adding that Bishop Harper of Christclnuch, and Bishop Seville of Dunedin, both travelled by the first Sunday train from their respective cities. Mr. Firth is an excellent, enterprising and public-spirited gentleman, acting wit'ithe L st onu kiudlies) intentions; but we cannot conceive it possible that in a cuse of Sabbatarian law aud practice he can have the hardihood, — even for the moral and spiritual welfare of those persons who disregard tho voice of the charmer, and will insist on travelling on Sundays, — to offer his opinion in opposition to tho opinions, strengthened by practice, of three Bishops of the Church. That surely were "flat blasphemy." But whether or not we take leave to predict that neither hero nor in tho South will Sunday trains be stopped while Sunday steamers and coaches are permitted to traverse road and river.