Sunday-Law Hearing at Trenton, New Jersey
By B. F. Kneeland
EIGHT bills have been introduced in the New Jersey Legislature this winter, touching in one way or another the question of Sunday observance. Six of these had been referred to the committee on municipal corporations, and this committee gave a hearing on the bills March 1. Some of these bills gave greater liberty in the sale of liquor, and others provided that each municipality should decide for itself the days when games and recreations would be permitted, and liquor allowed to be sold. Judging from other experiences, we thought that the matter would be taken up mostly from the temperance point of view, and the religious phase kept in the background. However, in this we found ourselves much mistaken. Elder G. W. Spies, our religious liberty secretary, and the writer were present, and before the hearing asked the chairman for a chance to speak. Judging that we were ministers, and consequently opposers of the bill, he told us to arrange with the one who had charge of the opposition. We told him that this would not do; that we were opposed to the saloons, but could not agree with the position of the other preachers, therefore could not ask for a part of their time. He finally agreed to let us have a few minutes after the others were all through. About thirty preachers were present, and they seemed to feel that if those bills should pass, the whole Christian religion would go to pieces. The first man who spoke said that the sabbath is a state institution and must be protected by the state; that the local communities could not decide the question of Sunday recreations; it must be settled by the state. Rev. Percy Schelley, of Phillipsburg, Day Alliance, said: “Temperance is not the main issue in this hearing. The sabbath is on trial. I want to deny the right of this legislature to overrule the law of the almighty God. The sabbath stands for God.” He said that the personal liberty for which pleas were being made is only a mask to cover the attempt to destroy the sabbath; that it is like the handkerchief that covered the hand of the slayer of President McKinley, and the kiss of Judas Iscariot, and is very much akin to anarchy. Another minister, Rev. Albert Chapman, of Hackensack, said: “Just pass these bills, and in two years the people will express themselves at the polls in a way that will not be misunderstood.” Rev. Jas. Parker, of the United Presbyterian Church, Jersey City, was perhaps the most outspoken of any. He strongly denounced the pleasure resorts on the coast. One might easily get the impression from the speeches made that the only thing necessary for the salvation of the nation is a strict Sunday law, and that the utter moral ruin of the community would follow any relaxation of the so-called “blue-laws,” under which, about a year ago, a man was fined two dollars in the city of Trenton for selling a pair of shoe-strings on Sunday. Mr. Parker said: “There are two theories of government recognized by men. These are the theistic, which recognizes God, and the atheistic, which recognizes no God. All the talk in favor of these bills proceeds along the line of the atheistic theory recognizing no God. The question you are asked to legislate upon is not baseball or liquor, but you are asked to legislate upon the sabbath. The fundamental rule of Blackstone is that all human laws should be founded on divine laws. Now there is a divine law which says, ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,’ and I deny your right to override that law. You might as well repeal the eighth commandment, against stealing, as to repeal the fourth commandment.” The hearing lasted three hours. At the close the chairman said that two or three others wished to speak on the bills, and that they would be allowed three minutes each. Elder Spies then rose to speak for the Religious Liberty Bureau. He said he was in favor of closing the saloons seven days in the week, and the preachers said, “Amen.” He then went on to call attention to the dangerous character of Sunday laws, showing that, in order to be consistent, the legislature would have to enforce by law the Lord’s supper, baptism, and the repeating of the Lord’s prayer. He said that the dangerous question raised is that of religion, and not of temperance. By this time the Sunday-law advocates began to look a little troubled, and act as though they wished the hearing would close. But the chairman gave me the floor, and I rose and said I was a Seventh-day Adventist. Somehow, even this did not seem to make them look really happy. I told them that we were for temperance in its strictest sense, and did not favor the saloons. I then went on to say: “There is a religious question brought in here which involves a very dangerous principle. You are asked to settle a religious question by civil law. The fourth commandment has been quoted here repeatedly this afternoon. It says, as has been quoted, ‘Remember17also says, ‘The seventh day is the Sabbath.’ Any one who can read an almanac knows that Sunday is not the seventh day, in fact the very bills that we are now considering call it ‘the first day.’” I then spoke very briefly, as one must do in a three-minute speech, of the character of such laws, and quoted one or two pertinent sayings from great statesmen, to show that we did not stand alone in our view of the matter. I then submitted a statement which had been signed by our conference executive committee, setting forth our position as believers in prohibition, and asking that laws be framed to place the same checks upon the saloon on all days, without respect to their religious character, and to allow each one to choose his own time for his recreation, so long as it was not in itself harmful to good citizenship. I had no time to read this, but it was placed in the hands of each member of the committee, and at least one of the leading State papers printed it in full. However, a decided impression was made upon the legislators who were present, and I found several, after the hearing adjourned, who seemed quite anxious to get literature stating our position more fully, which we placed in their hands. Some of the preachers were very much stirred up because of the turn which affairs had taken. I noticed, however, that at the hearing on the local option liquor bill, which was held a week later, hardly a preacher was present, and all reference to religion was carefully eliminated. I congratulated the leader of the antisaloon forces on this feature at that time, and told him we were heart and soul with them when it came to a straight fight with the saloon. He said he appreciated our position, and was glad that we were against the saloon. All these things speak in no uncertain language of the passing opportunities, which will soon be forever gone.