p. 7 | Religious Liberty Department

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D.C. · Jun 10, 1909

Religious Liberty Department

Twelfth Meeting, May 27, 8 A. M.

On account of the rain, and the departmental tent not being floored, the meeting was held in the Conference pavilion. There was a large attendance, the tent being nearly full. Unusual interest was manifested in the subject considered at this meeting, which, as announced, was, “When Arrested for Sunday Labor, How Should We Plead; Guilty or Not Guilty?” Elder W. M. Healey led out in the discussion, reading a very well-written and carefully prepared paper on the subject, the gist of which was that we should plead, “Not guilty.” To plead guilty would be wrong, because no actual guilt exists, as no real crime has been committed, and would at once end the trial, and cut off all further pleading, or presentation of the truth or the principles involved, and simply leave the judge to pronounce sentence. The law itself is wrong. Those making and enforcing it, therefore, and not the one on trial, are the real guilty parties. The cases of Nebuchadnezzar and the three Hebrews, and Ahab persecuting the prophets and people of God, were cited in proof of this.

Following Elder Healey’s paper, a paper written by Judge C. C. Holbrook, of Colorado, sent on by him to the department, was read by the chairman. This likewise was a very able, logical, and well-written presentation of the subject, and was much appreciated by all present. The position taken by the judge agreed with that taken by Elder Healey, that we should plead, “Not guilty,” a number of well-defined reasons being given in support of the correctness of it. Before pleading, however, the judge stated that it would be proper and well to make a motion that the case be quashed, on the ground that no real crime had been committed, and that the law itself, under which the case was brought, was unconstitutional, both as regards the State constitution, and the Constitution of the United States.

Elder R. W. Parmele cited the case of Brother Lowry, of Tennessee, who, when brought before the court, and asked how he plead, did not plead at all, but simply remained silent.

The secretary, W. A. Colcord, stated that when a man was brought before court, and asked how he pleaded, it was not necessary for him to plead at all, in which case it was the duty of the judge to enter a plea of “not guilty” for him, upon the general principle laid down in all jurisprudence, that “a man is supposed to be innocent until he is proved guilty.”

The question whether a man could appear for himself, and plead his own case in court, was talked to by Elder Healey, Prof. J. G. Lamson, and S. B. Horton. The general opinion seemed to be that it was every man’s right and privilege to plead his own case, if he so desired, but that he might employ counsel, if he preferred to do so. In some cases, Elder Healey thought it would be wise to engage counsel, cases in which an attorney understood and would plead the principles of religious liberty. The cause of truth in such a case might be further advanced by this means. This would not prevent the individual indicted making a statement himself.

Thirteenth Meeting, May 28, 8 A. M.

The subject considered was, “What Should Be Our Attitude Toward Exemption Clauses?” The question was quite thoroughly discussed in an extended paper prepared and read by Elder C. S. Longacre. For us to ask exemption from Sunday laws, he held, would be unwise and contrary to sound principles. In the end it would shut off from opposing the laws themselves. The course pursued by the Seventh-day Baptists in this respect was cited in proof. They had asked for exemption, and had almost entirely ceased their opposition to Sunday legislation.

Exemption from the requirements of a religious law is of the nature of toleration; and toleration is not true liberty, but implies the right to be intolerant. While it might not be wise or expedient to oppose exemptions where granted, and while we might even express appreciation of the good intentions of legislators in granting them, still the law is wrong that requires an exemption to prevent its coming in conflict with conscience and inalienable rights.

Elder J. S. Washburn followed Elder Longacre, stating that he concurred in the position that it is quite proper for us not to ask for an exemption to Sunday laws; at the same time he thought it would be unwise for us to oppose such exemptions; for in reality they virtually nullified the law.

Fourteenth Meeting, May 30, 8 A. M.

The special topics were, “How to Work with State Legislators,” and “The Importance of Exercising Caution in Our Reference to the Government and Its Officials.” Prof. J. G. Lamson led out with a paper on the first subject, in which he emphasized the advisability of legislators being interviewed and written to by their constituents, rather than by those who might be considered in the light of professional lobbyists. He spoke of the necessity of exercising tact coupled with affability.

Elder Conradi gave some good advice, prefacing his remarks with the scripture, “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” He spoke of the difference between the

freedom enjoyed in America, and the condition in this respect in some of the European countries. In these countries the work had to be started and carried on very carefully and cautiously, as all their movements were watched, and everything was under the surveillance of the police. Unwise statement or unguarded movements would have precipitated a crisis and closed up the work. He spoke of his own imprisonment in Russia some years ago, and how God wrought for his deliverance. He referred to the courage and firmness of some of our young men in military service, who had been brought into strait places. Great care had to be exercised that nothing should be done by our people which might be construed as opposing civil government. The civil authorities had recognized something of the seriousness of the situation, and the difficulty of making satisfactory arrangements.