Another Memorial

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Mar 12, 1908

On Tuesday, March 3, Senator Kean, of New Jersey, laid before the Senate “a memorial of the Seventh-day Baptists of the United States,” which was read, and printed in the Congressional Record of the same date, page 2891. This memorial is an earnest protest against Sunday legislation, having special reference to the Sunday bills now pending in Congress, and is based upon two leading representations. These we quote as follows:—

First, the Constitution of the United States declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That Sunday legislation is forbidden under this act is shown by the records of Congress from 1808 to 1830. . . .

Reports, discussions, and petitions concerning Sunday mails crowd the annals of Congress from 1811 to 1830. Mr. Rhea, chairman of the Committee on Post-Offices, reported adversely concerning efforts to secure a change in the law requiring Sunday opening on Jan. 3, 1812; June 15, 1812, and Jan. 20, 1815. Postmaster-General Granger made adverse report Jan. 16, 1815, saying:—

“The usage of transporting the mails on the Sabbath is coeval with the Constitution of the United States.”

Jan. 27, 1815, Mr. Daggett made an adverse report, that was considered by the House in Committee of the Whole, Feb. 10, 1815, and after various efforts an amendment was passed, as follows:—

“Resolved, That at this time it is inexpedient to interfere and pass any laws on the subject-matter of the several petitions praying the prohibition of the transportation and opening of the mail on the Sabbath.”

March 3, 1825, an act was passed “to reduce into one the several acts establishing the Post-Office Department,” section 11 of which reads as follows:— “And be it further enacted, That every postmaster shall keep an office, in which one or more persons shall attend on every day on which a mail shall arrive, by land or water, as well as on other days, at such hours as the Postmaster-General shall direct, for the purpose of performing the duties thereof; and it shall be the duty of the postmaster, at all reasonable hours, on every day of the week, to deliver, on demand, any letter, paper, or packet, to the person entitled to, or authorized to receive, the same.”

This renewed the discussion throughout the country, and Congress was flooded with petitions and counter-petitions, which were referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads, of which Richard M. Johnson was chairman. He made an elaborate report to the Senate Jan. 19, 1829, and to the House March 4 and 5, 1830. These reports were exhaustive and able documents. They centered around the question of Congressional legislation on religious subjects, all phases of which were considered with marked ability and candor. [Then follow extracts from these reports, showing that they were adverse to Sunday legislation.—Ed.]

The adoption of Mr. Johnson’s report settled the question of Sunday legislation by Congress for many years. Its revival calls forth this memorial asking that Congress will not reverse its decision made in 1830.

Second, in addition to the fact that after a discussion lasting twenty years, Congress determined to abide by its constitutional restrictions touching Sunday laws, we offer another objection to the bills now before it. Leaving out the historic fact that Sunday laws have always been avowedly religious, we call attention to the religious elements and principles contained in the bills now before you. They create crime by assuming that secular labor and ordinary worldly affairs become criminal at twelve o’clock on Saturday night and cease to be criminal twenty-four hours later; they assume that the specific twenty-four hours known as the “First day” of the week may not be devoted to ordinary affairs, because of the sinfulness and immorality resulting from such use of those specific hours.

The fact that religious leaders are the main promoters of Sunday legislation shows that religious conceptions are at the basis of Sunday laws, and that religious ends are sought through their enforcement. The terms used, although somewhat modified in modern times, denote that the proposed laws spring from religious conceptions.

There can be no distinction between “secular” and “sacred,” “worldly” and “unworldly,” except on religious grounds. There is no reason, either in logic or in the nature of our civil institutions, why the first day of the week should be legislated into a day of idleness any more than the fourth day.

Through all history cessation from “worldly pursuits” on either the seventh or the first day of the week has been considered a form of religious duty.

Actions and transactions intrinsically right which promote prosperity, good order, and righteousness can not be changed into crimes at a given moment—by the clock—and purged from criminality “by act of Parliament” twenty-four hours later.

After this memorial had been read in the Senate, Senator Gallinger, the chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, made a statement which we quote from the Congressional Record:—

Mr. President, in connection with the memorial I feel it my duty, as chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, to make a very brief statement.

For several years we have had bills before that committee along the lines of the bills that are named in the memorial, and I believe there is one such bill before the committee at the present time. During the last Congress the committee had one or more hearings on the subject, but no conclusion was reached. The bill now before the committee will have consideration in the near future to the extent of a hearing, to which all the parties in interest, of course, will be invited.

I think it is proper I should say that, in respect to Sunday legislation, the District of Columbia is somewhat unique. Only a few days ago I was in a photograph gallery in Washington when a man employed there said to me, “I wish Congress would enact some legislation looking to Sunday as a day of rest.” I inquired how it affected him, and he said, “Simply because our photograph gallery is open all day Sunday; we are doing work here precisely as we do on week-days; and we are compelled to do it because all the other galleries in the city of Washington are open for that purpose.”

Mr. President, I am not going to intrude upon the Senate my views on this subject, but I do think it is of sufficient consequence to have the matter thoroughly heard before the committee and thoroughly discussed in this body; and as chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia I shall endeavor to see that that shall be done in the near future.

Our Seventh-day Baptist brethren have done the cause of religious liberty good service in presenting to Congress their able memorial, which ought to have weight with that honorable body. The statement made by Senator Gallinger is formal notice that the subject of Sunday legislation will receive considerable attention at this session of Congress, and ought to stir the opponents of religious legislation to earnest activity in behalf of religious liberty. Our Religious Liberty Bureau is giving this subject their attention, and will doubtless indicate to our people how they may assist in the campaign. Let each one make his influence felt on the right side.