Religious Liberty Department
By S. B. Horton
C. S. LONGACRE N. Am. Div. Secretary Important Hearing Before Congress
On June 12 a hearing was granted on the one-day-of-rest-in-seven bill, which was introduced March 21 in the House by Representative Buchanan of Illinois and in the Senate by Senator Hughes, of New Jersey. This bill reads as follow:— “(H. R. 14894, Sixty-third Congress, second session) “A Bill to grant all employees in the District of Columbia one day of rest in each seven days of employment. “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons employed by any manufacturing, mechanical, or mercantile establishment, laundry, hotel, restaurant, telegraph or telephone company, express or transportation company, or by any other establishment or person who may employ labor in the District of Columbia, including the employees of the District of Columbia government, shall have one day of rest of twenty-four continuous hours in each seven days of employment. “Section 2. That the inspectors authorized, under the act of April twenty-first, nineteen hundred and thirteen, entitled ‘An Act to regulate the hours of employment and safeguard the health of females employed in the District of Columbia,’ shall see that the provisions of this act are rigidly enforced, and they shall report all violations to the commissioners of the District, who shall instruct the corporation counsel to prosecute all such offenders. “Sec. 3. That any person, firm, or corporation who shall violate or does not comply with the provisions of this act shall, upon conviction, be punished for a first offense by a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $100; for a second offense by a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $300; and for a third offense not less than three months in jail nor more than two years, with a fine of not less than $500. “Sec. 4. That this act shall become enforceable upon its passage.” The measure had been referred to the committees of both houses. On the above-mentioned date the hearing was conducted by the subcommittee on labor of the House District Committee, and occupied about two and one-half hours’ time. The subcommittee was composed of Representatives A. C. Hart, Denis O’Leary, Chas. P. Coady, Geo. E. Gorman, Wyatt Aiken, Wm. J. Cary, and A. H. Walters. Several representatives of various orders and organizations appeared to speak either for or against the measure. Mr. Colpoys, representing the Central Labor Union, who favored the bill, said that the measure has become necessary “because of the conditions of street railway employees and the employees of the Washington Terminal Company, who had no way of protecting themselves, as would be the case if they were organized into a labor union.” He claimed that the railway employees were not favored with given rest days, but this was denied by both street railway company representatives in their remarks. Mr. Bowen, secretary of the Washington Railway and Electric Company, said that “the bill is impracticable because it does not recognize emergencies, and that it also fails to recognize the fact that in many cases in public service corporations there are men who have to be subject to the call of duty all the time. In the case of storm or wreck or a great and unexpected rush of traffic, where would a railway company be if it were a crime to call on its men to meet the emergency?” He also said the bill affects interstate commerce, as every railway, steamboat line, and electric railway running out of the District would be hampered by the bill. Mr. Bowen further called attention to the possibility that legislation of this character might lead to the old-time Puritanical Sabbath regulation, when it was “unlawful for a man to kiss his wife on Sunday.” He showed that the present Maryland Sunday statute is a work of the old Puritanical days, and cannot be enforced at the present time. The proprietor of the Congress Hall Hotel said that it would be almost impossible to operate the hotel and close one day out of the seven. He also said that if the bill were to pass and become a law the same as the female labor law, he could not figure on how the hotel could be operated. Other railway and hotel men occupied practically the same position as the foregoing speakers. Owing to the unavoidable absence of Elder Longacre, secretary of the North American Division of the Religious Liberty Association, the writer appeared before the committee, and said:— “It will have to be determined by the reading of my paper as to the attitude we assume. Our position relates itself to the advisability of this kind of legislation. Considering the question of a weekly rest day from the standpoint of a toiler, we should favor any legitimate and proper agency by which results are to be attained. But whether such a measure as H. R. 14894 comes within the purview of ‘legitimate and proper agency,’ is a matter upon which there may be legitimately a difference of opinion. And, while we are not inclined to oppose the measure under consideration, we would simply raise the question at this time as to whether or not legislation of this character does not partake of the principle of paternalism. To explain: Was the American government organized to take away the independence of its citizenship, and thus invite the people to lay all the burdens upon the government? “This measure is designed to guarantee to toilers by civil law one day’s rest in seven in the District of Columbia. We favor this rather than any measure which may be designed to specify by civil law a particular day of the week upon which everybody shall be compelled to rest at the same time. However, in the light of a present experience we see another possibility in this kind of legislation; namely, an open door through which to conserve by civil law the ecclesiastical interests of the church. You will permit me in explanation of this statement to refer to the history of21rest-day legislation in the State of California, where they have the following rest-day law, which was approved Feb. 27, 1893, and reads as follows:— “‘Section 1. Every person employed in any occupation of labor shall be entitled to one day’s rest therefrom in seven, and it shall be unlawful for any employer of labor to cause his employees, or any of them, to work more than six days in seven; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any case of emergency. “‘Sec. 2. For the purposes of this act, the term “day’s rest” shall mean and apply to all cases, whether the employee is engaged by the day, week, month, or year, and whether the work performed is done in the day or night time. “‘Sec. 3. Any person violating the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. “‘Sec. 4. This act shall take effect and be in force thirty days from and after its passage.’—Statutes, 1893, page 54, Penal Code, page 722. “But, despite the fact that the requirements of the toiler in California are subserved by the law referred to, Sunday-law advocates are not satisfied, and they are now carrying on a campaign in that State looking to the supplanting of the rest-day law by a straight Sunday enactment. “You will pardon my intrusion upon your valuable time in referring to the California experience, my object in presenting it being to raise a note of warning in behalf of keeping intact the provisions of this bill. For, in the light of the agitation being carried on before Congress for many years, we have the right to anticipate that friends of compulsory Sunday observance legislation are ever ready to seize an opportunity to subserve the propagation of the religious observance of Sunday. “It may be rightly asked, Why do you protest against Sunday observance legislation so tenaciously? My answer is. There is but one great Sabbath law, that enacted by the Almighty at Sinai, provision for which had been made at creation, when he sanctified and hallowed the seventh day of the week as his rest day. But we do not contend for, nor would we be in favor of, any civil legislation looking to the enforced observance of the seventh day of the week. There are many thousands of Christians in this and other lands who observe the day designated in the fourth commandment as their rest day who, according to the principles upon which this government was established, should be protected in exercising this right. But if the government should designate another day of the week upon which to rest from toil, the Sabbath keeper would be deprived of his right to six days of labor. Enforcement of a Sunday law, therefore, would be tantamount to confiscating property, which the right to labor is recognized to be. It would be also a dispossession of property without due process of law. “We have in the District of Columbia a large number of seventh-day observers. They are interested in manufacturing plants, which would not be affected by the provisions of the measure now before this honorable committee, but which would be seriously affected if the provisions of the bill should be compromised by an amendment later on. “The danger of legislation of this character does not come from the provisions of the bill in its present state, but from the purpose of those who are urging this character of legislation. The bill as it now stands does not meet the purposes of many of those who are asking for its enactment, but is brought forward as an entering wedge to the accomplishment of their real purpose at a later date. This has been demonstrated in the State of California, and has been cautiously admitted by some of the advocates of this kind of legislation. A purpose of the promoters of such bills as the one now being considered is to bring about ultimately the enforcement of a day of rest upon all people, and that that day shall be Sunday. I thank you for this privilege.”