Fate of the California Sunday Law.
By Editor
It is now about a year since certain parties, mostly members of certain churches, started a vigorous crusade against Sunday-breaking, or rather for the enforcement of the Sunday Law. From its commencement we had doubts of the motives of the movers of the crusade, from the fact that they professed to act in behalf of temperance, while we knew, as the event proved, that they were acting solely in behalf of Sunday. We did not like the law, because of its evident injustice, its discrimination in religions, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution of the State. A case was brought before Chief Justice Morrison, who decided that the law was constitutional, that it did not discriminate for or against any religion, it being merely "a police regulation" and not a law affecting religion. All except the determined advocates of the law were struck with the manifest absurdity of this decision. For the title of the law, which, if we mistake not, is in California as authoritative as the law itself, declares that it concerns "Offenses against Religion." Justice Morrison was not ignorant of this fact. There are two days observed religiously in California: the seventh day, kept in obedience to the law of God, the ten commandments; and the first day, kept in professed obedience to a law of the New Testament, which, however, has not been produced; but more specifically kept, in obedience to the law of the State, and in conformity to an "American custom." Nor was Justice Morrison ignorant of this fact, that some Christians kept "the Sabbath-day according to the commandment," which enjoins working six days and resting the seventh. A case, considered a test, was brought before the full Supreme Court, and a decision was rendered March 10. Four Justices, a majority, decided in favor of the law; three dissented. Very able jurists not only dissented from the decision of the majority, but declared that the opinions of the dissenting Justices were likely to carry more weight with the people than those of the majority.547The prominent papers of the State took ground against the decision. The Alta said:— "The decision rendered by the Supreme Court yesterday, declaring the Sunday Law to be constitutional, proves a general surprise, and promises to induce complications which will make it very unpopular. There is an old maxim that all common sense should be law, but that not all law is common sense. The Sunday Law is likely to fall under this condemnation. The Supreme Court decides that to enforce observance of the Sabbath will not be an unfair abridgment of personal liberty, and places within the power of a vigorous, though not definitely ascertained, class of public agitators, the legal right to cause the cessation of business in all but a few branches absolutely necessary to operate on Sunday. There will soon be two sharply defined parties, equally vigorous in favor of and opposition to the law. There is already a rich and powerful body, the League of Freedom, organized to defeat the ends of the Sunday Law, and which has announced its intention of conducting against it a political war. The question will be a leading public issue, and State politics will be largely subordinated to it. It is not difficult to see that there will be a numerous, energetic, wealthy, and influential element engaged in a determined effort to elect a State Legislature pledged to repeal the Sunday Law. In the present condition of politics it is almost safe to predict that this element will succeed." The Evening Post, speaking of this decision, said:— "This was not an unexpected result. Nevertheless, it remains to be determined whether or not it is a final settlement of the case. Laws, like governments, derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. That is a fundamental principle of republican government; it is a foundation stone of our republic, deliberately selected by the patriotic fathers to whose wisdom and love of freedom we are indebted for the enlightened and liberal form of government we enjoy. A law which is obnoxious to the masses of the people, or inimical to the best interests of any considerable class, can never be enforced in this country, though it be authorized by the most direct mandate of the constitution, and framed with due regard to the strictest requirements of technical construction." The following is the closing paragraph of the Post's article:— "But after all we fancy the next Legislature will be called upon to set at rest all doubts and quibbles as to this law. Undoubtedly the demand will be made for the repeal of the law, and with equal certainty the question of repeal or non-repeal will enter into the election of Senators and Representatives next fall. That election, then, will determine the will of the people in that regard, and from that tribunal there will be no appeal." This was a clear foreshadowing of the result of the decision. We will not now repeat the leading arguments of the dissenting Justices which were laid before the readers of the SIGNS. Some of their arguments were so just and reasonable that they could not fail to carry conviction to the minds of those who examined them with any degree of candor. We were not among those who demanded a repeal of the law, nor would we unite with those who were leagued together to oppose it. Yet it was well understood by those who watched the movement closely that its design was ultimately to stop the operations of the Seventh-day Adventists. Many proclaimed that the object was the suppression of the traffic in liquors, but the feeling in the churches, where the movement was started and fostered, was readily learned by mingling in the crowd at the close of a Sunday-Law sermon by some popular preacher. There it was freely talked that, when the Sunday Law was enforced, the labor of the Adventists on Sunday would be stopped. Little or nothing was said at such times and in such places about the sale of liquor. And the churches early sent forth a declaration that they intended to make it an issue in the next election, pledging themselves not to vote for any candidate who was not pledged to sustain the Sunday Law. In view of this we published the following words in an editorial in the SIGNS, of March 16, 1882:— "The Sunday question is now fairly launched upon the stormy sea of politics, with the prospect that the present law will be hopelessly wrecked. If that result shall be reached it will be attended with unpleasant and undesirable consequences, as a day of rest will thereafter, at least for a season, scarcely be known in California. We would not wish to see such a state of things, but it will be a natural reaction from an unwise attempt to interfere too far with civil and religious freedom." But the movers in this Sunday crusade felt strongly fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court, and refused to be warned. Warrants were sworn out and arrests made by hundreds, and for a short time there was great rejoicing in the ranks of the Sunday people. But it was for a short time, as it was soon discovered that it was impossible to procure convictions before juries, and about two thousand cases were dismissed, it being generally agreed that the election must determine the result. In the meantime some of the more calm and considerate in the vicinity took the alarm. They saw danger both to the law and to the churches in the agitation which had been inaugurated by them. The San Francisco Bulletin, of March 27, contained the following notice:— "Last evening, at the Calvary Church, Rev. John Hemphill spoke to his congregation on the Sunday Law and the issues at stake. He presented many of the arguments which have become familiar by use in discussions recently. He said he was afraid that a mistake had been made by the friends of the Sunday Law in bringing up the question for decision just at the present time. Circumstances at another time might be more favorable for success. He thought that the next Legislature would take measures to repeal the law. A majority of its opponents would in all probability be members of that body." Major Whittle, the evangelist, was laboring in California at that time. After listening to two ministers who urged the rigid enforcement of the Sunday Law, he said it would be better if the clergy preached less about the law and more of the gospel; that the present excitement about enforcing a State law would act disastrously to the churches. The Democratic State Convention met in June, and adopted a platform which, though it did not mention the Sunday Law, was well understood as a demand of that party for the repeal of the law. And here again was manifested the duplicity of the Sunday advocates. They quickly sounded the alarm that the Democrats had pressed the Sunday question into politics, and called upon the Republicans to mark the issue with a declaration in favor of the Sunday Law. We call this duplicity, because we intend to tell the truth, let it strike where it will. The "Home Protectionists," the prime movers in this agitation, had declared months before the sitting of the Democratic Convention that with them loyalty to the Sunday Law should be the test in the next political canvass, and that if the parties did not nominate candidates pledged to support it, they would nominate a separate ticket on that issue. Under these circumstances, with the settled and openly avowed determination to make the Sunday Law the main political issue, it was no small show of "cheek" to accuse any party of forcing the Sunday question into politics. Many of the Republican papers accepted the issue, and declared their readiness to go into the canvass on the advocacy of the Sunday Law. But here came another warning, this time from the Chronicle, which said that if the Republican Convention took the defense of the Sunday Law it would only court defeat. But the cry was up, and a strong demand was made by the Home Protectionists, declaring that they would set up a separate ticket if the Republicans did not accede to their demand. As it was believed that a separate ticket meant the success of the Democrats, this was really a threat held over the Republicans which they dared not disregard. They adopted a Sunday-law platform, and it became the main issue of the campaign. Mr. Estee said, in a speech in San Francisco, that it was the main issue, and as San Francisco was about the most unpromising field in the State in which to advocate a Sunday Law, we may conclude that he was firmly convinced that he was speaking the truth. We may safely conclude that the result is a popular verdict on the Sunday Law. As we predicted last March, the law is "hopelessly wrecked." We have no doubt that one of the first measures of the next Legislature will be the repeal of the law. If any disastrous results follow, the blame will rest on the Sunday agitators who unwisely determined that everybody should do as they do, and if people did not agree with their religious tenets, they should be compelled to act as if they did! They are fully protected in their worship, having granted to them privileges not granted to others. But this did not satisfy them. They had a zeal not all according to knowledge, or to the spirit of genuine Christianity. That which vexed them was that others, who did not agree with them on the Sunday question, had any privileges whatever. We recently asked a prominent Democrat, who was elected to office at the last election, what, in his opinion, would be the effect on society after the repeal of the law. He thought but little difference would be known. He said the people have done as they pleased heretofore, and they will do so hereafter. But he recognized this difference: heretofore they have acted with the threat of the law over them; hereafter the fear of prosecution will be removed. But we think this cannot fail to make considerable difference. We shall not be surprised if, so far as Sunday observance is concerned, California returns to "the days of forty-nine." Had the churches heeded our warning, this need not be so. We neither asked for nor desired anything leading to such a result. Nor have we any hope that, in case of a reaction in the public mind, the churches will act more wisely than they have in the late agitation. An equitable Sunday Law, just in its operations, allowing reasonable privileges to all religious denominations, for which the Constitution provides, would receive no opposition from us. But the spirit manifested by the churches in the late campaign forbids us to hope that they will be satisfied with any grant of privileges to those who do not keep Sunday as they do. And we think that the prediction of Major Whittle has been fully verified. The proscriptive spirit manifested by the churches, the arrogant manner in which they put forth their demands for recognition in the political canvass, and the ardor with which they advocated their religious tenets as objects of political action, have all had their effect on the public mind. We believe at this time the churches of California which have taken a prominent part in this agitation, stand lower than they ever did before in public esteem. The people have less confidence in them as conservators of true religion and morality, than they ever had before. Their action hereafter will be watched with suspicion, as it is well understood that they will not hesitate to make any encroachments on the rights of others to carry out their plans, and to gratify their worldly ambition. We shall see whether they will appreciate the situation, and try to redeem their standing "by patient continuance in well doing."