THE New York Legislature has certainly contributed its share of interest in the Sunday-enforcement movement during the past winter. There have been introduced in the legislature no less than twenty-five bills pertaining to the Sunday question in one form or another. The bills have been of such a nature that the committee to which they have been referred has segregated them, giving hearings on different bills on different occasions. On Wednesday, March 24, four bills known as the “Jew bills,” came up for hearing. These bills were introduced by three Hebrews, and one representative from New York City, in the interest of the Jews. There is very little difference in the reading of the bills. We here give one, that the reader may see the import of all:—
“An ACT
“To amend the penal law, in relation to permitting labor and secular business on the first day of the week by certain persons.16
“The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:—
SECTION 1.—Section 2144 of chapter — of the laws of 1909, entitled ‘An act providing for the punishment of crime, constituting chapter 40 of the consolidated laws,’ is hereby amended to read as follows:—
“SEC. 2144—Persons observing another day as a sabbath.—[It is a sufficient defense to a prosecution for work or labor on the first day of the week that the defendant uniformly keeps another day of the week as holy time, and does not labor on that day, and that the labor complained of was done in such manner as not to interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of the week as holy time.] No person who conscientiously believes that the seventh day of the week ought to be observed as the Sabbath, and actually refrains from secular business and labor on that day, or who conscientiously believes that the Sabbath begins at sundown on Friday night and ends at sundown on Saturday night, and actually refrains from secular business and labor during said period, and who has filed written notice of such belief with the clerk of the county in which such person resides, shall be liable to prosecution for performing secular business and labor on Sunday, provided he disturbs no other person who is attending public worship.
“SEC. 2.—This act shall take effect Sept. 1, 1909.
“EXPLANATION.— Matter in italics is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted.”
It will be readily seen that the Jews were desirous of receiving some peculiar favors, and so asked for this exemption clause. We, of course, could not speak in favor of the bill, since we do not consider the state has any right to grant exemptions, from the fact that every person has a right to worship God as he chooses, providing he infringes upon no rights of his fellows. The Jewish rabbi and several other Jews desired very much that we stand with them, and speak in favor of the measure. We told them we could not do so, because we believed that we must stand for principle.
Elder A. J. Clark, who has been watching matters in the legislature the past winter in the interest of the New York conferences, had been promised a hearing against the bills, and it was not expected that any of the Sunday forces would appear against them. To our surprise, however, we learned that a large number had appeared to speak against the measures. The politico-religionists said that Seventh-day Adventists should not have a minute of their time in opposing the bill, and we felt indeed thankful that we were not to be classed with them. Neither could we speak in favor of the bills. We had to stand alone. But how could we get a hearing, since we desired so much to speak on the principles of religious liberty? The Lord certainly opened the way.
When the hearing opened, the chairman said that the opposers of the bill should have forty-five minutes, those who favored the bill should have the same length of time; then, he said, there would be given time to the Seventh-day Adventists. We surely felt that the Lord gave us the victory.
The first speaker to oppose the bills was a Roman Catholic lawyer, a Mr. Malone, of New York. He said he appeared in behalf of the Federation of Churches of New York, representing three hundred ten Protestant churches, and thirty-two denominations. He further said he represented Archbishop Farley, Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York, eight hundred Catholic priests, and all the Roman Catholics of the New York diocese. In other words, he said he had come before the committee to represent all the forces of Sunday observance to protest against the measures.
He started out by reading an article from the Cyclopædia, article Sunday, as to the meaning and purposes of Sunday. This was his religious, civil, and political reason, and upon this definition of Sunday he spoke to the committee for nearly half an hour. He told how they kept another day for the Sabbath than did the seventh-day observers. The majority, he said, had recognized this first day, and so it was necessary for all to keep it. He said that he had also come from patriotic motives, since he thought it was better to tell the Jews and seventh-day observers what might happen if they sought to break down the American institution of Sunday; whereas, if they showed their loyalty and patriotism by observing this American institution, they would all be happy and peaceful.
He sounded the note of warning and danger by telling the Jews and seventh-day observers that if they insisted in destroying the one holy day and holiday of America, it would create a great deal of prejudice against them, and it would very much hurt their standing. He said the American people could not afford to allow the American sabbath to be secularized, and this would be done if this exemption were granted them.
It was evident to all what the drift of his speech meant, and it was a sign to seventh-day observers of what will happen when these Sunday forces come into power. It was clear to us who understand the signs of the times, that the forces are uniting, and all are standing on one common ground, and that they purpose to see to it that all who do not come into line may expect something to happen.
The next speaker was a lawyer from New York, by the name of General Perrine. He said that to allow this bill to pass was to sound the death knell of liberty in America. It would destroy all respect for religion, religious rights, and especially would it have a tendency to ruin all respect for the American Sunday. By some sort of process of reasoning he adduced proof that there were over fifty-three millions of people in this country who respected Sunday as a religious institution, whereas there were but one hundred seventy-seven thousand Jews who kept Saturday, there being, he claimed, thousands of Jews who did not observe their own sabbath. So he thought that it would hardly be fair to have all those millions yield to so small a minority.
He made a tirade on the Jews and seventh-day observers, and finally said that he should hate to see a boycott in America, or perhaps a Kishnieff. His remarks were certainly rabid, and made plain what might happen, and also what the Sunday workers were thinking about.
There were representatives from the various butchers’ associations, meat-cutters’ associations, and labor organizations, all pleading that it would be unfair to the working men if the Jews had the privilege of getting work and doing business on a day on which the rest had to cease from labor. It would, they said, do one of two things, either compel the majority to work on Sunday or else give the seventh-day observers an unfair advantage. Of course nothing was said about those who keep the seventh day losing a day. That counted for nothing. In it all there was manifested that spirit of selfishness characteristic of those who want it all, or else they do not propose to see others get anything.
A letter was read from Dr. Wm. Huntington, of New York, objecting to the Jews coming to this country and tearing down our institutions, finding fault with the Bible being read in our schools, and demanding privileges which would destroy respect for the liberties of the American people; also one from Bishop Greer, who hoped that nothing would be done to lessen the sacredness of the Sunday institution.
Instead of the hearing of the opposition lasting only forty-five minutes, it lasted over an hour and a half. All through the speeches one thing was very discernible, and that was the spirit of opposition to seventh-day observers, and the ignoring of the rights of those who do not come into harmony with the popular idea of “Americanism” and “American institutions” as interpreted by them.
As we listened to these men bitterly opposing all those who differed with them, and throwing out their hints and suggestions as to what might happen if the prejudices of the American people were aroused by the conduct of seventh-day observers should they persist in keeping the seventh day and working on the first day, we were reminded of what the Word of God has declared would be decreed against those who refuse to worship the image and the beast and receive his mark, and what the spirit of prophecy has likewise said concerning the people who would be loyal to the truth of God.