Where Sunday Laws Hit

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Apr 17, 1889

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 4, No. 13.

Where Sunday Laws Hit

The Rev. Dr. G. W. Bothwell has stated that proposed Sunday laws are not “aimed at” those who observe the seventh day. Doubtless the same thing would have been said in Arkansas in 1885, where the effort was made to repeal the clause exempting from the penalties of the Sunday law those who observed any other day of the week. The sole object of those who secured that repeal was, as they said, to close the saloons. It was claimed that under cover of that exemption section, certain saloon keepers successfully defied the law. Accordingly the section was repealed, but the saloons were not molested. Out of twenty-one cases of indictment for Sunday work, only one person was not an observer of the seventh day, and that one person was not convicted, although it was clearly proved that he worked. We present herewith a few of the cases, in order that our readers may see that Sunday laws almost invariably hit observers of the seventh day, whether they are aimed at them or not. We copy from chapter seven of “Civil Government and Religion,” by A. T. Jones, for sale at this office. For the sake of brevity, we omit, in most cases, the record of fines, etc.

FIRST CASE.

“Elder J. W. Scoles, a Seventh-day Adventist minister, had gone from Michigan to Arkansas in June, 1884, to assist Elder D. A. Wellman in holding some meetings at Springdale, Washington County. As the result of these meetings, quite a number of persons adopted the faith of that body, and practiced accordingly. In August, 1884, Elder Wellman died, and Elder Scoles continued the work in that place. In the winter of 1884–85, Elder J. G. Wood went from Appleton City, Mo., to assist Elder Scoles at Springdale. A church was organized in that place early in 1885, and the erection of a meeting-house was begun at once. In addition to his subscription to the enterprise, Elder Scoles agreed to paint the house when it should be ready. Further than this, we have the words of Elder Scoles himself. He says:—

“‘I volunteered to do the painting as my share of the work, in addition to my subscription. I worked away at the church at odd times, sometimes half a day and sometimes more, as I could spare the time. The last Sunday in April, 1885, in order to finish the work so I could be free to go out for the summer’s labor with the tent, and expecting to go the next day twenty miles, I went over to the church, and finished up a small strip of painting on the south side of the house, clear out of sight of all public roads; and here I quietly worked away for perhaps two hours, in which time I finished it, and then went home. It was for this offense that I was indicted.’”

“At the fall term of the Circuit Court held at Fayetteville, Mr. J. A. Armstrong, of Springdale, was summoned before the Grand Jury. He was asked if he knew of any violations of the Sunday law. He said he did.

“Grand Jury—‘Who are they?’

“Armstrong—‘The ’Frisco Railroad is running trains every Sunday.’

“G. J.—‘Do you know of any others.’

“A.—‘Yes; the hotels of this place are open, and do a full run of business on Sunday, as on other days.’

“G. J.—‘Do you know of any others?’

“A.—‘Yes, sir; the drug stores and barber shops all keep open, and do business every Sunday.’

“G. J.—‘Do you know of any others?’

“A.—‘Yes; the livery stables do more business on Sunday than on any other day of the week.’

“After several repetitions of this same form of questions and answers, in much the same manner, in relation to other lines of business, this question was reached—

“G. J.—‘Do you know of any Seventh-day Adventists who work on Sunday?’

“A.—‘Yes, sir.’”

“After getting from the witness the names of his brethren, indictments were found against five persons, all of whom were Seventh-day Adventists. Elder Scoles was one of the five.”

From the above it will be seen that special pains was taken to indict none but those who had conscientiously observed the seventh day. A more marked instance of deliberate persecution could not be imagined. Mr. Scoles was convicted, and an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, where the decision of the lower court was sustained.

SECOND CASE.

Mr. Meeks had been a resident of Arkansas since 1856, with the exception of one year. He had held the office of justice of the peace for a number of years both before and after the war. When he became a Seventh-day Adventist he refused to hold the office longer, because its duties conflicted with his observance of the Sabbath.

“Mr. Meeks was indicted at the July term of the Circuit Court, 1885, for Sabbath breaking. He was arrested in November, 1885, and held under bonds of $500 for his appearance in January. The offense for which he was indicted was planting potatoes on Sunday—the third Sunday in March, 1885. The work was done near Mr. Meeks’s own house, and not nearer than two and a half miles to any public road or any place of public worship.

“On the day referred to, Mr. La Fever and his wife went to visit Mr. Meeks at his home, and found Mr. Meeks planting potatoes. Mr. Meeks quit his work, and spent the rest of the day visiting with Mr. La Fever. La Fever afterward reported Mr. Meeks to the Grand Jury; and as the consequence, Mr. Meeks was indicted, as stated. The fourth Monday in January, Meeks appeared before Judge Herne. His case was laid over to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the Scoles case.

FIFTH CASE.

“James M. Pool, a Seventh-day Adventist, was indicted for Sabbath breaking, at the fall term of the Circuit Court held at Fayetteville, beginning the first Monday in September, 1885. He waived his right to jury trial. The only witness in the case was J. W. Cooper. Cooper was a member of the Presbyterian Church, and professed sanctification. He went to Pool’s

house on Sunday morning, to buy some tobacco, and found Pool hoeing in his garden; so testified before the court, Judge Pittman presiding. The judge sustained the indictment, pronounced Pool guilty, and fined him one dollar and costs, amounting to $30.90.

SIXTH CASE.

“Mr. J. A. Armstrong moved from Warren County, Indiana, to Springdale, Arkansas, in 1878. In September, 1884, he joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church at Springdale. November, 1885, he was indicted by the Grand Jury for Sabbath breaking. On the 13th of February, 1886, he was arrested by William Holcomb, deputy sheriff for Washington County, and was held under bonds of $250 for his appearance at the May term of the Circuit Court. The particular offense upon which the charge of Sabbath breaking was based, was for digging potatoes in his field on Sunday. Millard Courtney was the prosecuting witness. Mr. Armstrong had a contract for building the school-house at Springdale. Mr. Courtney, with a friend, went to Armstrong’s house on Sunday, to negotiate a contract for putting the tin roof on the school-house. From the house they went into the field where Mr. Armstrong was digging potatoes. There the business was all talked over, and the contract was secured for putting on the tin roof. Then this same Courtney became the prosecuting witness against Mr. Armstrong for working on Sunday.

“On the first Monday in May, Mr. Armstrong appeared before Judge Pittman, Circuit Judge of the Fourth Judicial District, at Fayetteville; and, waiving his right to jury trial, submitted his case to the court for decision. Judge Pittman sustained the indictment. Fine and costs, amounting to $26.50, were paid, and Mr. Armstrong was released.”

NINTH CASE.

“Mr. James, a Seventh-day Adventist, was indicted by the Grand Jury in January, 1886, for Sabbath breaking. The particular offense was for doing carpenter work on Sunday. The indictment was founded on the testimony of Mr. Powers, a minister of the Missionary Baptist Church. Mr. James was working on a house for a widow, near the Hot Springs Railroad. The work was done without any expectation of receiving payment, and wholly as a charitable act for the poor widow, who was a member of the Methodist Church. Mr. James worked in the rain to do it, because the widow was about to be thrown out of the house in which she lived, and had no place to shelter herself and family. Powers, the informer, lived about six hundred yards from where the work was done, and on that very Sunday had carried wood from within seven rods of where Mr. James was at work, and chopped up the wood in sight of Mr. James.

TENTH CASE.

“At the January term in 1886, Mr. Meeks was indicted the second time. July 13 he was arrested on a bench warrant in the hands of William La Fever. Meeks gave bonds for his appearance at the July term of court. The offense was for fixing his wagon-brake on Sunday. He was reported to the Grand Jury by Riley Warren. Warren had gone to Meeks’s house on the Sunday referred to in the indictment, to see Mr. Meeks about hiring a teacher for their public school, for both of them were members of the School Board of their district. In the course of their conversation, Mr. Meeks incidentally mentioned having mended his wagon-brake that morning. This was reported to the Grand Jury by Mr. Warren, and the indictment followed.

ELEVENTH CASE.

“John A. Meeks, aged fourteen years, son of Edward L. Meeks, was indicted by the Grand Jury at the January term of the Circuit Court of 1886, for Sabbath breaking. The offense was for shooting squirrels on Sunday. The place where the squirrels were shot was in a mountainous district entirely away from any public road, or any place of public worship. He was reported by a Mr. M. Reeves. The sons of Mr. Reeves were hauling wood with a team on that same Sunday, and were present with the Meeks boy in the woods, and scared the squirrels around the trees for the Meeks boy to shoot. When the sport was over, the Meeks boy divided the game with the Reeves boys.

“Then the father of the Reeves boys reported the Meeks boy and he was indicted. His case was held over to await the decision of the Supreme Court in the Scoles case. At the January term in 1887, the boy confessed judgment, and was fined $5.00, and $3.00 county tax was assessed, and the costs, amounting in all to $22. The fine was paid, and the boy released.”

FOURTEENTH CASE.

“William H. Fritz was indicted at the April term of the Circuit Court in 1886, for Sabbath-breaking, and held under $250 bonds for his appearance at the September term, at Huntsville. Mr. Fritz is a wood-workman, and the offense charged was for working in the shop on Sunday. The shop was in the country, and two hundred yards from the public road. The indictment was sustained. The defendant was fined $1.00 and costs, amounting to $28. Mr. Fritz was a Seventh-day Adventist.”

SIXTEENTH CASE.

“I. L. Benson was not, at that time a member of any church, made no pretensions to religious faith, and did not observe any day. He had the contract for painting the railroad bridge across the Arkansas River at Van Buren, Ark. He worked a set of hands on the bridge all days of the week, Sundays included. In May, 1886, Mr. Benson and one of his men were arrested on the charge of Sabbath breaking. They were taken to Fort Smith, and arraigned before a justice of the peace. The justice did not put them through any form of trial, nor even ask them whether they were guilty or not guilty, but read a section of the law to them, and told them he would make the fine as light as possible, amounting, with costs, to $4.75 each. They refused to pay the fines, and were placed in custody of the sheriff. The sheriff gave them the freedom of the place, only requiring them to appear at the justice’s office at a certain hour. Mr. Benson telegraphed to the general manager of the railroad in regard to the matter. The general manager telegraphed to his attorney in that city to attend to the cases.

“Mr. Benson and his men appeared before the justice for a hearing in their cases. It was granted, with some reluctance. The attorney, Mr. Bryolair, told the justice it was a shame to arrest men for working on the bridge at the risk of their lives to support their families, when the public work in their own town was principally done on Sunday. A hearing was granted, and the trial set for the next day.

“They were not placed under any bonds at all, but were allowed to go on their own recognizance. The following day a jury was impaneled and the trial begun. The deputy sheriff was the leading witness, and swore positively that he saw them at work on Sunday. The jury brought in a verdict to the effect that they had ‘agreed to disagree.’ This was on Wednesday. The following Monday was set for a new trial. No bond was even at this time required. The defendants appeared at the time appointed, and pleaded not guilty. The justice, after giving them a brief lecture, dismissed the case.”

TWENTIETH CASE.

“In August, 1886, Mr. P. Hammond, a member of the Baptist Church, appeared before the Grand Jury in Hot Spring County, and charged J. L. Shockey with hauling rails and clearing land on Sunday, the first day of the week, July 11, 1886. The Grand Jury presented an indictment. On December 14, 1886, Mr. Shockey was arrested and taken to Malvern, locked up until the next day, when he gave the usual bond for his appearance at court, and was released. The work for which Mr. Shockey was indicted was done on a new farm which he was opening up in the woods, three-fourths of a mile from any public road, and more than a mile from any place of public worship, and not in sight of either. The witness, Mr. Hammond, passed by where Mr. Shockey was at work, and after he had gone some distance, returned, and spoke to Mr. Shockey about buying from him a Plymouth Rock rooster. The bargain was then made, Hammond agreeing to pay Shockey fifty cents for the rooster.

“Shockey was indicted, and his case set for trial February 7, 1887. This case, with the one before mentioned, and some others that had been held over to await the decision in the Scoles case, was called, and February 11 fixed as the day of trial for all.”

These are sufficient to show the practical workings of a Sunday law that was not “aimed at” observers of the seventh day. If such results can come from the law when it is not aimed at them, what will be the result when they go deliberately to work to secure “legislation embarrassing to them”? We say that the man who knows these things and does not vigorously oppose such legislation, no matter what his religious belief, or whether he has any at all, is destitute of patriotism and of the feelings of common humanity.

But let it be understood that no National Reformer or active Sunday-law agitator of any organization whatever, has ever said a word in disfavor of the course pursued in Arkansas. On the contrary, the restoration of the section exempting observers of the seventh day from the penalties of the law, was strenuously opposed by many religious leaders. The editor of the Arkansas Methodist declared in his paper that “the Sabbath laws” without the exemption section had “worked well enough,” and were about as near perfect as we can expect to get them under the present Constitution.” In view of these things, which are generally known, and which have been brought time and again to the attention of Sunday-law workers, and in view of the action of the present Arkansas Legislature, and of the sayings of such men as Dr. Bothwell, and of the further fact that exemption clauses are vigorously denounced, we think we are justified in saying that, as a general thing, Sunday laws “are aimed” quite directly at observers of the seventh day.