Your ShelfYour Projects

A Sunday Law Hearing

4%

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Apr 23, 1908

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 85, No. 17.

Read the full edition

A Sunday Law Hearing

By W. W. P.

A HEARING on the Sunday observance bills introduced into the Senate by Senator Johnston of Alabama was given last Wednesday afternoon by a sub-committee of the committee on the District of Columbia, consisting of Senators Johnson, and Gamble of South Dakota. The hearing occupied an hour and a half, and the time was equally divided between those who favored either or both of the bills, and those who opposed them.
The first speaker was Mr. F. B. Sands, representing the butchers’ clerks, who spoke for the passage of Senate Bill No. 3940 “requiring certain places of business in the District of Columbia to be closed on Sunday.” Mr. Sands said that this bill was desired by his clients in order that they might have one day in the week when they would not be compelled to attend to business. He argued that this bill was for the benefit of a certain limited class, and thought that those not directly affected by the bill ought not to oppose it.
Mr. Charles F. Diggs spoke briefly in behalf of the Retail Grocers’ Protective Association, using practically the same line of argument as that employed by Mr. Sands.
The leading argument in opposition to these bills was made by the editor of the Review, who had been requested to represent the views of Seventh-day Adventists upon this question. A summary of the argument presented is as follows:—
The bill is religious in its character, and is aimed to secure the observance of a day held as sacred by a part of the community rather than to protect all citizens in their equal rights. This is shown in the title, which states that it is “a bill for the proper observance of Sunday as a day of rest in the District of Columbia;” and the body of the bill further emphasizes this claim by restraining all persons from engaging on that day in the ordinary pursuits which are followed freely upon the other days of the week. Inasmuch as no such restraint is deemed necessary in order to secure the proper observance of such civil holidays as the fourth of July, the twenty-second of February, etc., it is plain that by this bill Sunday is to be distinguished from civil holidays; and the only basis for such a distinction is the supposedly religious character of the day.
The exception made in favor “of household work or other work of necessity or charity” is in the usual language dealing with the religious observance of a day.
As by this bill sports and amusements freely permitted on other days are forbidden, it is evident that the framer of the bill intended to secure the religious observance of the day. Such prohibition of amusements is an infringement on religious liberty, as is plainly stated by Tiedemann in his work on “Limitations of the Police Power,” as follows:—
“The indulgence in quiet, orderly amusements, since they involve no violation of private rights, can not be prohibited by law without infringing upon the religious liberty of those who are prevented, and such regulations would therefore be unconstitutional.”
The bill permits the performance of works of necessity on the first day of the week, but expressly states that such work must be so performed “as not to interfere with the repose and religious liberty of the community.” It is evident that the “religious liberty of the community” would not be disturbed on the first day of the week more than on other days, were it not that the first day of the week is regarded as different in its character from the other days, and the pursuit of the ordinary avocations of life would be a desecration of the day. The fact that religious services are held on other days of the week and that the worshipers find sufficient legislation in the acts protecting peaceable assemblies on all days of the week, shows that no further legislation is required merely for the protection of religious gatherings on Sunday.
This is not a mere theory, but is found practical by the more than two million citizens of the United States who observe the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, but do not deem it necessary to compel others to refrain from labor on that day in order that they may have religious liberty and not be disturbed in their religious assemblies.
The history of the fourth and fifth centuries shows that the real purpose of Sunday legislation in forbidding labor and sports is to secure attendance on public worship.
A bill so plainly religious as this one, is contrary to the first amendment to the Constitution, which provides “that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This is clearly shown in the well-known mail report prepared by Hon. Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, in 1830, who said: “Congress acts under a Constitution of delegated and limited powers. The committee look in vain to that instrument for a delegation of power to inquire and determine what part of time, or whether any, has been set apart by the Almighty for religious exercises. On the contrary, among the few prohibitions which it contains, is one that prohibits a religious test, and another that Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
This bill violates the true principle of religious liberty as well in the case of those who voluntarily observe the first day of the week as the Sabbath, as in the case of those who observe the seventh day of the week, or of those who do not wish to observe any day. The principle is the same whether one is compelled to do what he wishes to do, or what he wishes not to do.
Sunday laws would not be justified even if an exemption clause were inserted in favor of those who observe another day. The right to enact such a law with an exemption clause involves the right to enact a law without an exemption clause.
At the close of the argument, the following conclusions were drawn:—
1. All legislation requiring cessation of labor or amusements or both, on the first day of the week, is religious legislation.
2. All such legislation, being religious legislation, is contrary both in spirit and in letter to the first amendment to the Constitution.
3. All such legislation infringes upon the religious liberty of all classes of men, not only of those who observe another day and those who observe no day whatever, but as well of those whose present religious sentiments lead them to the voluntary observance of the first day of the week as a day of rest and worship.
4. All such legislation is outside the proper sphere of civil government, whose duty it is to protect all its citizens in the exercise of their religious beliefs, so long as in so doing they do not interfere with the equal rights of others, or in their refusal to exercise a religious belief, and not to favor any religion or any sect of any religion.
5. All such legislation constitutes a decision of a religious controversy, and if enforced, leads to religious persecution.
6. All such legislation is based upon religious considerations, and can not be justified upon civil grounds.
7. All such legislation is in effect a union of church and state, and is therefore both un-American and unchristian.
W. A. Colcord, secretary of the Religious Liberty Bureau, followed with a brief paper, in which he traced the history of the Sunday bills now before Congress, and showed that they originated in an interdenominational committee representing the churches of the District, thus making it clear that the real purpose of this legislation is of a religious character. He also adduced various arguments relating to the provisions of the bill and the principles involved therein, which further emphasized the fact that the legislation is religious in its character, and an infringement upon religious liberty and a violation of constitutional rights.
K. C. Russell, the chairman of the Religious Liberty Bureau, also read a paper in which he dwelt further upon the nature of the proposed legislation and emphasized its religious character.
Mr. David Eccles, representing the Secular League of Washington, then made a brief address before the committee, in which he declared that if the request for this legislation was granted, it would be but the beginning of legislation infringing upon the rights of citizens, and that it was better to leave the question of the hours of labor to be adjusted by the various labor organizations.
Mr. James L. Feeney, chairman of the Legislation Committee of the Central Labor Union, of Washington, then spoke briefly in favor of the bills under consideration, and the chairman declared the hearing adjourned.
W. W. P.