Sunday Laws in the District of Columbia by W. A. C.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 30, 1908

Sunday Laws in the District of Columbia

By W. A. C.

BESIDES several municipal Sunday laws relating to different classes, barbers, saloonists, gamblers, etc., passed years ago as municipal regulations and now in force in Washington, D. C., or in certain sections of the city, there is already a general Sunday law in the District of Columbia prohibiting “work” or doing “any bodily labor on the Lord’s day commonly called Sunday,”—the old Maryland Sunday law of 1723,—though it is a question whether this law is really valid, operative, and in force here now.

Last July there was brought in the police court of the District what appears to be a test case under this old law, which, along with other Maryland laws, was incorporated, by Act of Congress in 1801, as a part of the laws of the District of Columbia.

The first section of this old Act of 1723, of which Section 10 is the Sunday law referred to, is a law against blasphemy, including the denial of “the holy Trinity,” and “the unity of the Godhead,” the first offense against which is punishable by the offender’s being “bored through the tongue and fined twenty pounds sterling,” or in case the fine can not be collected, “suffer six months’ imprisonment without bail;” for the second offense, to be “stigmatized by burning in the forehead with the letter B and fined forty pounds sterling,” or in default of the fine, “suffer twelve months’ imprisonment without bail;” and for the third offense, “suffer death without the benefit of the clergy.”

The fine, under Section 10 of this Act, for working on Sunday is a forfeiture of “two hundred pounds of tobacco, to be levied and applied as aforesaid.” The “as aforesaid” refers to provisions in previous sections of the Act. Section 4 provides that where the fines referred to in this Act are not paid immediately, it shall be lawful for the magistrates or other specified officers to order the offender, unless “a freeholder, or other reputable person,” to “be whipped, or put in the stocks.” And Section 5 provides that “no offender shall receive above thirty-nine lashes, or be kept in the stocks above three hours, upon any one conviction.”

Congress did not, of course, formulate and pass the various sections of this old religious and intolerant Act, and probably few if any of the members of Congress who took action back in 1801 were aware that they were incorporating such laws into laws for the District of Columbia; but whether aware of the fact or not, this is what they did.

The case under this law, now in the District courts, to which reference has been made, was not against any of our brethren, but against a driver of a dirt cart, a Mr. Robinson, who was employed by a District contractor. The work was performed on Sunday, July 21, 1907. Complaint was made by Gen. John A. Wilson, who served in the Civil War.

November 5, when the case was argued in the police court, Judge Mullowny decided that the law was obsolete on account of its long disuse, and inoperative and unnecessary because its leading provisions, he said, had been covered by other and later legislation; whereupon, the defendant was dismissed. But the case was at once appealed to the Court of Appeals, the highest court of the District, and came up before the three judges of this court on Friday, January 10. On January 21 the Court of Appeals rendered its decision sustaining the action of the lower court. We think it hardly probable that this case will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

We interviewed the lawyer for the defense, Mr. E. S. Duvall, several times, and supplied him with a quantity of religious liberty literature. He made a good argument before the Court of Appeals, reading the greater portion of this old Maryland Act of 1723, and showing up the inconsistencies and unconstitutionality of this ancient piece of colonial legislation.

It is significant that this old Sunday law should be dug up, its character exposed, and its validity tested, just now when so many Sunday bills are being introduced into Congress. The question of Sunday enforcement is certainly being pressed to the front as never before. We hope that our people will comprehend what this means, and do the work that needs to be done to enlighten people as to the significance of these things at this time.

W. A. C.