The Recall and Religious Liberty

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Nov 28, 1912

The Recall and Religious Liberty

In the New York American of October 29, there appeared an article by Charles D. Hilles, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, in which he discussed the bearing of the proposed recall of judicial decisions upon religious liberty. As the election is now in the past, and this article can therefore not influence any votes, we reprint it entire. The fact that it mentions Seventh-day Adventists several times shows that this denomination and its teachings are recognized by public men as a factor in the general situation. The letter follows:—

“The terrible menace to Jews, Catholics, Christian Scientists, Seventh-day Adventists, and probably to members of certain other denominations, which is contained in the Bull Moose platform, and is involved in the policy of the recall of judicial decisions, has been strikingly pointed out by Col. Abe Gruber, of New York, who has been the first to perceive the danger of the people of his race involved in this proposition.

“The Constitution of the United States contains a guaranty of religious freedom to all citizens of the United States, and many of the State constitutions, being modeled after that of the nation, contain similar guaranties. But with every decision of the courts to the effect that a given law was unconstitutional, subject to popular vote, on petition, any law violating the guaranty of religious liberty could be maintained, despite its unconstitutionality, merely by a vote of a bare majority of the voters.

“Should the Jews, the Catholics, the Seventh-day Adventists, the Christian Scientists, or other denominations become for the time being unpopular with a majority of the people, the constitutional guaranty of religious liberty, which has been the proud boast of this country, would promptly become null and void on a vote of a bare majority of the people. Or, on the other hand, should any denomination become so powerful in any State as to seek to repress and oppose the members of another, it would be necessary only to secure a bare majority of the voters to recall a decision of the courts declaring an oppressive law unconstitutional, and the same guaranty of religious liberty would be nullified.

Question of Sabbath Observance

“It is a decision of the supreme court of New York, declaring the so-called Bake-shop law unconstitutional, which Mr. Roosevelt has used to illustrate his cry, ‘Shall the people rule?’ and to point his argument for the recall of judicial decisions.

“There is another law in New York which was passed to effect the observance of Sunday, but which contains a clause designed to protect those who, like the Jews and Seventh-day Adventists, observe the Saturday, or Sabbath. This clause provides that it shall be ‘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 work on that day,’ etc.

“Under this provision thousands of Jews observe Saturday and work on Sunday; but suppose that their business rivals should decide to compel them to keep Sunday, knowing that from religious conviction they would be obliged to keep the Saturday as well, and thus to reduce their labors to five days out of seven, just as a few years ago the large manufacturers of cigars attempted to drive out of business those small cigar makers who manufactured their product in their homes?

“To amend the law by striking out the exemption of those who keep holy some day other than Sunday would be comparatively easy. Under the present system of an independent judiciary, however, such an amendment would undoubtedly be pronounced void because a violation of the constitutional guaranty of religious liberty. With the recall of judicial decisions proposed by Mr. Roosevelt, however, such a decision of the courts might be promptly nullified if a majority of the voters chose to ignore the religious rights of the Jews and Seventh-day Adventists, and to ‘recall’ the decision of the court.

Fears of Religious Oppression

“Is it surprising that Colonel Gruber says feelingly that if Oscar Straus, the third party candidate for governor of New York, says ‘that the right to religious freedom shall be voted on by petition and without a constitutional convention first convened, then God help him and his and my people.’ “It may be argued that in this day and age the American people are too tolerant to undertake [to invade] the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution; but, as the New York Tribune remarks, ‘The answer is that they have tried to invade them time and again—generally in ignorance of the full effect of their acts, but not less really for that. Nor

is religious and race prejudice dead. It is still alive and always liable to break out under the stress of economic pressure; and that is just exactly the pressure which foreign races coming here put upon the older settlers. Open the door to legislation, making these people conform their religious habits to the prejudices or interests of others, and there is no limit to the oppression to which they may be subjected.”

“There is at least one State in the Union in which the majority of votes are cast by Roman Catholics. Now, it is well known that Catholics do not approve of a system of public schools which excludes religion from the teaching of the child. But were the Catholics to attempt to [close the doors] of public schools which exclude religion from the teaching in the public schools, any law the passage of which might be secured would be pronounced unconstitutional by the courts. But under Mr. Roosevelt’s scheme for the recall of judicial decisions, the majority could amend the law in any way it chose, without regard to the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom.

“It may be that the Catholics would do nothing of the kind.

“It may be that no one would attempt to deprive the Jews of their religious liberty.

“But does any patriotic American believe it wise to throw away the safeguards provided by the Constitution?”