Hearing Before the Commissioners of the District of Columbia
By C. S. Longacre
When Judge Pugh of the police court of the District of Columbia declared an old Sunday law of the District void, 210 barbers of the District shortly afterward presented a petition to the commissioners, requesting them to introduce a bill into Congress, prohibiting all barbers from opening their shops on Sunday. As soon as the Religious Liberty Association learned what was contemplated, a hearing was requested, which was freely granted by the commissioners, and was held in the District building on April 29. The commissioners listened very attentively to the arguments that were made against all Sunday legislation. Mr. A. C. Luber, Mr. Myers, and others representing the larger barber shops of Washington, appeared in opposition to any law being passed that would close the barber shops on Sunday. Mr. Myers presented a petition from the managers of some nineteen of the leading hotels in the city against Sunday closing of barber shops. He also stated that clergymen, senators, and representatives stopping at the hotels, frequently come in to be shaved on Sunday. Mr. Rudolph Sauer, a citizen of the District, read a paper, in which he contended that the law asked for by the barbers would be an unreasonable, vexatious law, and a needless restriction of personal liberty of the citizen. “I have an old-fashioned idea,” he said, “that in a free country like ours, as few laws as possible should be made, and only such as are deemed necessary for the welfare and protection of the people.” Mr. John D. Bradley, secretary of the Washington Secular League, appeared in opposition of any Sunday legislation, and submitted a series of strong, well-written resolutions previously passed by the league, asking that there be no legislation upon this subject. Prof. W. W. Prescott, secretary of the Religious Liberty Association, spoke particularly in reference to some of the legal phases of this kind of legislation. He said: “I should like to make a brief statement concerning the ground on which I appear to oppose this petition. I am not engaged in the barber business. It is not because we are opposed to the observance of the day, but it is because we are opposed to any legislation tending in any way to interfere with religion or to force religion or religious observances. We are in favor of religion ourselves. We practise it and try to induce others to do so, but we are absolutely opposed to any ordinance or law of any kind that would attempt to compel even an apparent outward observance of any religious institution whatever.” “I ask first why this petition comes in, on what basis it rests. Certainly these 210 barbers who have signed this petition, if they are proprietors, can close their shops on Sunday if they wish. There is no law existing compelling them to keep their shops open on that day. If they are journeymen, they are not compelled to work. Every man is free in the matter of contract for labor. He is not under duress; and if he prefers not to work on Sunday, or has religious scruples, he is not compelled to do so. That is a matter of arrangement between him and the employer. “The only reason I can see for this petition would be this: Some proprietors are fearful that if they close their shops, the others might keep open. That is a matter of competition between different members of the same trade. Now I submit that there should be no law established prohibiting honest, honorable competition; that a law should not be invoked to settle controversies between employees and employers. “I should like to read a brief extract from a speech by ex-Senator Bailey, of Texas, as reported in the Congressional Record of Jan. 26, 1910: When the Johnston Sunday Bill was under consideration in the United States Senate, Jan. 26, 1910, Senator Paynter, of Kentucky, stated that ‘the employees of barber shops desired that the shops should be closed on Sunday because they did not want to work on that day; they wanted it as a day of rest. If the law required that the shops should be closed on Sunday, then the proprietors could not ask them to work on that day.’ In reply to this Senator Bailey, of Texas, said, ‘I am not disposed to allow any class of people to come to legislative assemblies of the country to settle controversies between them and their employees. I certainly would not insist that a barber ought to work if he does not want to work. . . . So far as I am concerned, I am not disposed to allow any class to come and ask for a law that interferes with some man who wants to pursue his calling, simply because some other man does not want to pursue it.’” “I have here an opinion of the United States Supreme Court which is found in the United States Court Reports, law edition, pages 939-949. This opinion relates to the ten-hour law for bakers, forbidding bakers to keep persons at work more than ten hours a day. The court held that it was an abuse of the police power, that there was nothing in the matter of health or morals that required such a law. Mr. Justice Peckham made a very strong statement on this:— “‘The statute necessarily interferes with the right of contract between the employer and employees, concerning the number of hours in which the latter may labor in the bakery of the employer. The general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty of the individual protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution. Under that provision no State can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The right to purchase or to sell labor is part of the liberty protected by this amendment, unless there are circumstances which exclude the right. . . . “‘Therefore, when the State, by its legislature, in the assumed exercise of its police powers, has passed an act which seriously limits the right to labor or the right to contract in regard to their means of livelihood between persons who are sui juris (both employer and employee), it becomes of great importance to determine which shall prevail,—the right of the individual to labor for such time as he may choose, or the right of the State to prevent the individual from laboring, or from entering into any contract to labor, beyond a certain time prescribed by the State. . . . “‘It must, of course, be conceded that there is a limit to the valid exercise of the police power by the State. . . . There is no reasonable ground for interfering with the liberty of person or the right of free contract, by determining the hours of labor, in the occupation of a baker. . . . The legislature of the State has no power to limit their right as proposed in this statute. . . . It is impossible for us to shut our eyes to the fact that many of the laws of this character, while passed under what is claimed to be the police power for the purpose of protecting the public health or welfare, are, in reality, passed from other motives. We are justified in saying so when, from the character of the law and the subject upon which it legislates, it is apparent that the public health or welfare bears not the most remote relation to the law.’” The following extracts are taken from Elder G. B. Thompson’s argument:— “I wish very briefly to call attention to the fact that all Sunday legislation is unconstitutional and is based upon religious grounds. Any legislation upon religious questions violates both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. There is nothing in nature which indicates a weekly day of rest, and we must needs go to revelation for the origin of Sabbath observance. Any law which seeks to regulate a man’s conduct differently on Sunday than on other days of the week must be based on religious grounds. Why do the barbers wish to close on Sunday rather than on Wednesday or Friday? It may not be because they have any religious convictions personally in the matter, but because Sunday, being a religious institution, can be more easily secured as a day of idleness. The laws which maintain the order and civility of the citizens of the District of Columbia on other days of the week will do the same on Sunday. The province of the civil government is to regulate the civil and not the religious conduct of the citizens. “Sunday legislation makes that which is right and proper on other days of the week a crime on Sunday. But why? Honest labor is always honorable. Industry is to be encouraged. There is no special virtue in Sunday loafing. Why then should a man be fined for shaving or cutting hair on Sunday more than on other days of the week? Why should a law be enacted which makes honest toil a crime? Such a law is wrong. Legitimate business can never be viewed differently on Sunday than on other days, except from the religious convictions of the individual. Civil government is to protect a man in the exercise of his religious conviction, but not to formulate his convictions into law as a compulsory guide for other people. When the government does this, it becomes a despotism, and it is that which the Constitution prohibits. “No legislation concerning the observance of Sunday is possible without deciding a religious controversy. We are not all agreed as to which day is the Sabbath. A reasonable minority disagrees as to which is the proper day to keep. Now the religious convictions of the minority are to be as sacredly guarded as the convictions of the majority. The final appeal to settle the question as to which day is right must be to Holy Writ. But the interpretation of the Bible is a work of an ecclesiastical body, and not of the state. Any legislation therefore on the question of the Sabbath which involves a decision of a religious controversy must be religious in character, and therefore unconstitutional. It would be just as proper for Congress to pass a bill defining the proper mode of baptism and enforce the ordinance by the police power. The United States Congress in 1829 and 1830 regarded Sunday legislation as religious. The Senate Committee gave consideration to this question and decided adversely. The committee assigned as a reason that to pass a Sunday law would be to enter the realm of religion and decide a religious controversy, a question which pertains to ecclesiastical councils, but not to legislative assemblies. I quote an extract from this famous report:— “‘Should Congress in legislative capacity adopt the sentiment, it would establish the principle that the legislature is a proper tribunal to determine what are the laws of God. It would involve a legislative decision on a religious controversy, and on a point in which good citizens may honestly differ in opinion, without disturbing the peace of society or endangering its liberties. If this principle is once introduced, it will be impossible to define its bounds. “‘Let the national legislature once perform an act which involves the decision of a religious controversy, and it will have passed its legitimate bounds. The precedent will then be established, and the foundation laid, for that usurpation of the divine prerogative in this country which has been the desolating scourge of the fairest portions of the Old World.’—Senate Report, 1829.” The writer himself presented a number476of arguments against such legislation, showing that it is an infringement upon the natural rights of man, and to what such legislation would ultimately lead. The commissioners were very courteous throughout the hearing, and while they reserved their decision in the matter, we are quite sure that they will not recommend any Sunday bill to Congress in response to the petition from the barbers. We may have another hearing soon before the Senate Committee on the Johnston Sunday Bill. We earnestly solicit the prayers of all our people that the Lord will give us wisdom to present the truth to these lawmakers so that they will see the beauty of it and stay the hand of oppression. It is only as God grants us favor that we can stand before these men and keep back this kind of legislation. Certainly there is a great demand on the part of religious people for religious laws, and we must be wide-awake and meet all these issues.