p. 3 | Proposed Sunday Laws

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 16, 1908

Proposed Sunday Laws

THERE is a determined purpose to induce Congress to pass some kind of a Sunday law. During the fifty-ninth Congress six Sunday bills of one kind and another were introduced, but for one reason or another only one of them was reported for passage either in the Senate or in the House. The sixtieth Congress began its first session on Monday, Dec. 2, 1907, and on December 5 two Sunday bills were introduced into the House, and on December 9 another was introduced into the Senate. How many more will be brought forward before the present session closes it is impossible to tell, but if we may judge by the number presented in the short time since its opening, we may not be surprised if the list of four is larger than ever before.

Two of the bills now before Congress are practically duplicates of those previously introduced by the same men. One of these is entitled “A BILL prohibiting labor on buildings, and so forth, in the District of Columbia on the Sabbath day,” and it provides “that no labor in constructing buildings, or railroads, or hauling material therefor, shall be permitted in the District of Columbia on the Sabbath day.” The religious character of this bill is evident both from the title and from the section quoted. It forbids certain kinds of labor “on the Sabbath day.” But why forbid honest toil “on the Sabbath day”? The answer is found in the fact that the Sabbath is a religious institution. But any legislation which is enacted in behalf of a religious institution is necessarily religious legislation, and is one step in establishing religion. And the inevitable result to which the passage of this bill would lead may be readily understood when we remember that among those who profess the Christian religion there is a controversy as to which day is the Sabbath, and this would make it incumbent upon the courts, in interpreting this legislation, to decide which is the Sabbath and thus to settle a religious question. This is not the function of Congress or the courts, whose jurisdiction extends to civil matters only. This bill is so glaring a violation of the principle of the separation of church and state that it is not at all likely that it will pass—at least not in its present form.

Much more plausible in its nature and much more likely to receive favorable consideration is “A BILL to further protect the first day of the week as a day of rest in the District of Columbia,” the provisions of which are as follows: “It shall not be lawful for any person to keep open any place of business or maintain a stand for the sale of any article or articles of profit during Sunday, excepting venders of books and newspapers, apothecaries for the dispensing of medicines, and undertakers for the purpose of providing for the dead, or others for the purpose of charity or necessity; nor shall any public playing of football or baseball or any other kind of playing, sports, pastimes, or diversions disturbing the peace and quiet of the day, be practised by any person or persons within the District of Columbia on Sunday; nor shall any building operations or work upon railroad construction be lawful upon said day.”

While not so baldly expressed in its terms, yet this bill is just as certainly religious legislation as is the one already mentioned. Its purpose is “to further protect the first day of the week as a day of rest.” It is plainly in the interest of a religious institution. It makes certain acts a crime when performed upon Sunday, although honorable in themselves and not forbidden upon other days of the week. The only possible reason for seeking such legislation as this is because its promoters regard Sunday as being different from other days, and wish to compel others to treat it in harmony with such a view of it. But the alleged difference between Sunday and other days is based wholly upon religious belief, and legislation which tends to force an acknowledgement of this difference is religious legislation and an invasion of the rights of conscience.

The true character of the bill is made doubly clear by a provision in section two, which reads thus: “It shall be a sufficient defense to a prosecution for labor on the first day of the week that the defendant uniformly keeps another day

of the week as a day of rest, and that the labor complained of was done in such a manner as not to interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of the week as a day of rest.” This clause plainly shows that it is the real purpose of the bill to compel every person to keep some day of the week as a day of rest, a sabbath. It is evidently the expectation that the large majority will keep the first day of the week, but the keeping of some other day, under certain restrictions, is tolerated. Certain facts about this half-way exemption clause, however, should not escape notice: it does not prevent the observers of another day from being arrested and brought into court, but simply affords a possible ground of defense; it does not therefore shield from the stigma of being treated as a criminal even those who do observe another day; it makes it possible for a person of one religious belief to do on the first day of the week what the bill makes a crime for a person of another religious belief to do on the same day; it does not protect those who observe another day from being disturbed by the public labor of those who observe the first day of the week; and it makes it possible for “other persons” who observe the first day of the week to destroy all the benefit of the clause, so far as observers of another day are concerned, by simply insisting that they are interrupted or disturbed by the labor complained of. And it should not be forgotten, with all the rest, that the power to enact such a law with an exemption clause involves the power to enact the same law without the exemption clause; and that where freedom has been enjoyed, a law compelling a religious observance, even with an exemption clause attached, is a long step toward oppression.

This bill, with its peculiar exemption clause, is a remarkable likeness of some of the religious legislation of the old colonial days, when there was a complete union of church and state. In 1692 the General Court of Massachusetts “enacted a law requiring each town to have a minister for whose support the inhabitants of the town should be taxed.” Later an act was passed exempting Baptists and Quakers from these taxes provided they “usually attend the meeting of their respective societies assembling upon the Lord’s day for the worship of God, and that they lived within five miles of the place of such meeting.” The colonists believed in religion enforced by law, and did not attempt to conceal their purposes under fair speeches about a “civil sabbath,” or by using the civil circumlocution, “the first day of the week.” Their frankness is at least honest and refreshing. But how can those who profess to believe in a separation of church and state consistently enact exactly the same kind of legislation? Is it not perfectly clear that in doing so they really abandon the doctrine of separation and espouse the cause of union?

This bill has been twice approved by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and its promoters are quite hopeful that it will pass. An effort will be made to secure a hearing on it before the House Committee, to which it has been referred, and we hope that the opportunity may thus be afforded to present the true principles bearing upon the whole subject of Sunday legislation.

In the Senate a bill has been introduced “to prevent Sunday banking in post-offices in the handling of money-orders and registered letters,” which provides “that the issuing and paying of money-orders, and the registering of letters and delivery of registered mail on Sundays, is hereby prohibited in the mail service of the United States.” The religious character of this bill is not so readily perceived as in the two already mentioned, but the principle of Sunday legislation by Congress is involved in it, and, if passed, will serve as a precedent for enactments of a more pronounced nature which are sure to be urged later. It will be altogether safer to leave the regulations of the post-office department to the proper officials of that department, rather than for Congress to place upon the statute-books a law which, in fact if not in terms, recognizes Sunday as the Sabbath.

We hope that there are still men enough in Congress who will be true to the principles of religious liberty so that no Sunday bill will be passed.