The Hearing on the Sunday Bills Before the District Commissioners
By K. C. RUSSELL
It will be difficult to describe the hearing so that those who were not present can understand the spirit that seemed to characterize those who were championing the Sunday bills for the District of Columbia now pending in Congress; but we can relate some of the incidents in connection with the hearing that will enable one to get some idea of this interesting occasion. The Commissioners before whom the hearing was held, three in number, are as follows: Chairman H. B. F. Macfarland, H. L. West, and J. J. Morrow. These men are appointed to serve in this capacity by the President of the United States; for the District of Columbia does not have self-government. The citizens here do not have the right of franchise. These Commissioners have practically the same function to perform that the mayor and alderman do in other cities. When bills are introduced into Congress for the District of Columbia, they are often submitted to the District Commissioners for their approval or disapproval. It will be readily seen that their opinion in regard to legislation for the District has much influence with Congressmen, as they are supposed to understand the needs of the District better than any one else, for they are giving their undivided attention to its interests. In view of the important and influential position the Commissioners occupy, we have keenly realized the necessity of placing before them in a clear and strong way the dangers of the proposed Sunday bills for the District of Columbia, for if they should recommend them favorably, Congress would be much more likely to pass them than otherwise. Prior to the hearing, we had assigned to seven of our brethren topics which they were to discuss before the Commissioners, if opportunity was given. The custom followed in the hearing was to allow the affirmative and negative to alternate with two ten-minute speeches for the first forty minutes, thus giving an aggregate of twenty minutes each to those who were in favor and those who were opposed to the bills. After these four speeches of ten minutes each, the remainder of the time was devoted to alternate five-minute speeches for and against the bills. Those who spoke in behalf of the bills certainly gave an illustration of a real medley. They all tried, however, to show in one way and another that they were not pleading for the Sunday bills on religious grounds, but for economic reasons. Rev. Wallace Radcliffe, the chairman of the Ministerial Association for Sunday rest in Washington, was present and spoke. When the friends of the bills observed that we were there lined up in systematic order with strong addresses against the bills, they began to realize their weakness without a sufficient number of speakers, and they went back in the audience, and asked if there were not those present who would speak in behalf of the bills. They also telephoned to labor men to hasten to their relief. Elder W. A. Colcord read a masterly paper against the Sunday bills for the District, covering the time of the first two ten-minute speeches for the opposition. Elder G. B. Thompson, Brother J. N. Quinn, and the writer spoke as they had opportunity. We regretted that the three other brethren who were prepared to speak did not have an opportunity before it was time to close the hearing. The others who spoke against the bills, besides Seventh-day Adventists, were Dr. Shirley, president of the Secular League of Washington, and Rabbis Simon and Stern. An interesting episode occurred in the midst of the hearing, when Mrs. W. F. Crafts arose and said: "I will ask liberty to file with the Commissioners a certain document which is a reproduction of a certain picture that is formed by the Seventh-day Adventists, which represents the United States government as that of a horned hog, and this I ask liberty to file with the Commissioners to show that the Seventh-day Adventists, although they say much about constitutionality of law, etc., are not law-abiding citizens." To this Chairman Macfarland gave the following rebuke: "The status of the Seventh-day Adventists is not at issue here. If you have any statement pertinent to the bills for us, we will receive it." Mrs. Crafts: "This is pertinent, sir." The Commissioner continued: "But we will not enter into any discussion of the Seventh-day Adventists at this time." The evident intent of Mrs. Crafts was to make it appear that we were not true and loyal citizens of this government. In this connection the following statements will be interesting:— "As for Adventists, no other sect can show a better citizenship. They are industrious, frugal, and peaceable. If all other men were no more prone to evil than they, the grand jury would have little to do, and courts, civil as well as criminal, could take a vacation of at least six days in the week, and have little to do the seventh."—Washington Post, Feb. 11, 1908. "I know your church and your people, and they are Protestants. Furthermore, it has been my privilege to live among your people for several years. In fact, I have been a neighbor to College View, which is one of the largest settlements of Seventh-day Adventists in the United States, and I can truthfully say that they are a very honorable, intelligent, upright class of people. They are patriotic and loyal citizens of the government."—Senator Burkett. I decided that I would make no reference in my speech to what Mrs. Crafts had said, for the unceremonious way in which the chairman addressed her, showed that he was not in sympathy with the reflection upon our people. The Commissioners were very impartial throughout the entire hearing. There were present at the hearing quite a number of the students from the Foreign Mission Seminary. It was a rare treat to them, and they considered the experience an invaluable one, as they will doubtless be brought into similar experiences in their work. There could be no better schooling for many of our religious liberty secretaries in the States than to arrange to spend some time here at the capital of the nation in connection with the religious liberty work during each session of Congress. We shall not know the result of the hearing, as far as the decision of the District Commissioners is concerned, until they report on the bills. It should be remembered that there is much more embraced in these hearings and other opportunities of this nature than the temporary defeat of Sunday bills which may be before Congress. The great question is the proclamation of the everlasting gospel, the warning against the beast, his image, and the reception of his mark. The salvation of precious souls should be the question of paramount interest in this or any other department of this closing work. K. C. RUSSELL.