Defeat of Proposed Religious Legislation in Iowa
By John S. Wightman
An interesting Sunday-law hearing took place at the Iowa State capitol, Des Moines, March 10, 11. On March 10 the House Committee on Judiciary heard those in favor of, and opposed to, a bill making illegal all forms of amusement and entertainment upon the first day of the week, “commonly called Sunday;” on March 11 the Senate Committee on Judiciary listened to the arguments for, and those against, the favorable recommendation of the bill. The bill was an act to amend section 5040 of the penal code relating to “a breach of the sabbath,” which alone was quite sufficient to show the religious character of the proposed legislation. It provided that “any person or persons, firm, association, or corporation, who shall keep open on the first day of the week commonly called Sunday, any place of public amusement, exhibition, or entertainment, to which an admission fee is charged, or received, or who shall conduct or take part in any said amusement, exhibition, or entertainment, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor;” and fine and imprisonment was provided. Elder M. N. Campbell, president of the Iowa Conference; Elder W. D. Parkhurst, religious liberty secretary of the Iowa Conference; and the writer represented the Seventh-day Adventists at these hearings. It so happens that strange alignments are often made at such a time as this, but none more striking were ever made than at these hearings. At the Senate hearing there were arrayed on the one side the National Reform Bureau, the Ministerial Alliance, and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union; on the other side, the Catholic Church, the American Federation of Labor, and the Seventh-day Adventists. It is a noteworthy fact that not a single theatrical manager, or theater property owner, those supposed to be most affected by this bill, was present. Our Adventist brethren came together at the hearing; and, as prearranged, our line of argument was as follows: Elder Parkhurst led out with a statement of the fundamental principles of civil government, and the proper object and the legitimate sphere of the civil power; the writer presented a purely constitutional argument, showing constitutional limitations, and pointing to numerous court decisions, in support of the contention that the legislation contemplated was unconstitutional; Elder Campbell followed, pointing out the danger that may be justly apprehended from these movements, the real object of organized religious societies, that in the sabbath-day legislation there was the whole scheme of union of church and state, that it was a question of religious legislation rather than the civil control of theaters for which there was ample law and other legitimate ways to correct. Almost from the very start the battle was for religious liberty and the rights of the individual; and the theater question would have been entirely lost sight of had not the friends of the bill patiently kept at the work of keeping “immoral plays” to the front. But the bill, as presented, had absolutely not one word in it about “immoral” or “degrading” plays. The State secretary of the National Reform Bureau directed the arguments made by the friends of the bill, in which he was closely seconded by the chairman of the Des Moines Ministerial Alliance, and the State president of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union. I verily believe that no stronger plea for legalized intolerance and bigotry has ever been made anywhere on the American continent since this nation came into existence, than this, unless, perhaps, with the single exception of the “Blair Sunday-rest bill” and its various hearings. It was a strange sight to see the Catholic priest, representing the church that in ages past has ever denied religious liberty, standing shoulder to shoulder with the representatives of the American Federation of Labor and the Seventh-day Adventists, in the plea for religious liberty, as against the intolerance asked for, and seen in every look and gesture of those demanding the recommendation of the bill! Within ten minutes after the hearing before the House committee, the bill was laid on the table, and thus met defeat. At the Senate hearing, the religious forces had summoned to their aid attorneys, the dean of the law school of Des Moines, and a lawyer from Dubuque. This, no doubt, to endeavor to overthrow the constitutional arguments made in the House committee the day before, which they expected would be repeated in the Senate. Suffice it to say, these legal lights did not overthrow: on the contrary—and strange to say—they talked about the “sabbath day,” its “desecration,” and its enforcement. Said Attorney Evans, the dean of Drake University Law School: “The American sabbath is here, and it has come to stay, and we who believe in it are going to keep it; and by the grace of God and the laws of the various legislatures, we are going to make all the rest of the people keep it.” It is significant that in the House committee these advocates for stricter Sunday laws pleaded only for a “civil” rest day. They desired only to save the laboring man from “greed and avarice;” the bill was designed more to keep him from being forced to labor on that day than for an especial “protection” of the day. Unfortunately for these advocates of “Sunday” rest, the representatives of labor—the State president of the American Federation of Labor and the representative of the Musicians’ Union of the United States—did not at all agree with them, but clashed several times directly with the Sunday-law speakers. An incident of the Senate hearing was the turning upon Brother Parkhurst by a senator, who asked the question: “Would you consider it religious legislation if the law proposed contemplated closing immoral theaters and shows on seven days?” He replied, “No;” whereupon the senator stated that our people had exemption laws, and ought to be satisfied with that. He continued: “It is a strange thing that people can come here, and claim to be against this immorality and wrong all the time, and not be willing to admit the right of closing it up one day,” etc. What he said utterly begged the real question. It was published, however, and went out to the people of the State; but I am glad to say19that the Register and Leader—Iowa’s leading journal—published a long communication from us setting our position right before the people, which, I trust, may, in a measure, overturn any wrong impressions made. And right here is a field of opportunity, the public press. The brethren of Iowa, and of every other State, can do a great work in sending communications to the various papers at such a time as this, clearly stating our positions upon these questions. Do not depend on one or two individuals. Let all who have ability engage in the work. I must not forget to add that both of these committee meetings, were attended by large crowds of people. Hundreds came to hear, and the interest shown was remarkable. It was, indeed, a favorable opportunity for making known the principles of religious liberty, and I believe that God will bless the efforts put forth by his people to enlighten. Neither must I forget to mention that the ministers earnestly spoke the following Sunday against the legislators who refused to sanction their bill. Said the United Brethren minister: “I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but the whirlwind is coming. It is so near that you can hear the low rumbling of thunder in the distance. And by and by it will break with all its pent-up fury upon those legislators who are not willing to represent the men who have sent them to the legislative halls, and upon the exacting corporations and grinding monopolies. It will be a battle of the ballots.” The writer is reliably informed that the bill has no possible chance of passing the Senate committee. But the National Reform Bureau representatives have threatened to bring it up in the House and Senate in some way, and at any rate: so there may be further developments after all.