The Sunday Bill Before the United States Senate
By W. W. P.
ON Friday, May 1, Senator Johnston, of Alabama, reported to the Senate the Sunday bill to which reference was made in the last REVIEW. This bill is a substitute for the bills previously introduced by Senator Johnston, and reads as follows:— “That it shall be unlawful for any person or corporation in the District of Columbia, on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, to labor at any trade or calling, or to employ or cause to be employed his apprentice or servant in any labor or business, except in household work or other work of necessity or charity, and except also newspaper publishers and their employees, and except also public-service corporations and their employees, in the necessary supplying of service to the people of the District. “SEC. 2. That it shall be unlawful for any person in said District on said day to engage in any circus, show, or theatrical performance: Provided, That the provisions of this act shall not be construed so as to prohibit sacred concerts nor the regular business of hotels and restaurants on said day, nor to the delivery of articles of food, including meats, at any time before ten o’clock in the morning of said day from June first to October first; nor to the sale of milk, fruit, confectionery, ice, soda and mineral waters, newspapers, periodicals, cigars, drugs, medicines, and surgical appliances; nor to the business of livery stables, or other public, or the use of private, conveyances; nor to the handling and operation of the United States mail. “SEC. 3. That any person or corporation who shall violate the provisions of this act shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than ten dollars or by imprisonment in the jail of the District of Columbia for not more than ten days, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court: Provided, That persons who are members of a religious society who observe as a sabbath any other day in the week than Sunday shall not be liable to the penalties prescribed in this act if they observe as a sabbath one day in each seven, as herein provided. “SEC. 4. That all prosecutions for violations of this act shall be in the police courts of the District of Columbia and in the name of the District.” A printed report was submitted on this bill, which was in the nature of an argument in favor of its adoption, with an attempt to answer some of the objections which had been presented at the hearing. Some of the considerations presented in favor of the enactment of such legislation are thus stated:— “The seat of government of the United States is perhaps the only territory within its jurisdiction in America where the fourth commandment has been repealed or is practically ignored, or where at least the universal sentiment in favor of a legislative day of rest does not prevail.” “No religious duty is enjoined; no attendance on any church is any more required than there is any prohibition of hearing a lecture in support of infidelity. Every citizen is permitted the widest liberty of conduct except only following the ordinary avocations and amusements of the week. There is no invasion of the home, no disturbance of the family, no prohibition of friendly intercourse. The bill imposes no restraint whatever upon the religious liberty of any citizen of the District.” “It would seem that if anywhere in the United States some fair regard for the divine law or human needs should be observed, it is in the capital city and District of the country.” “The appeal of those who are compelled to labor in shop and factory under fear of a permanent loss of employment in case of refusal should appeal to the humanity of every good citizen.” “It was stated at the hearing, and not denied, that the greatest opposition at the hearing before the commissioners of the District came from the Seventh-day Adventists, and that they did not number, men, women, and children, more than three hundred in a population of some three hundred thousand.” The simple reading of this bill and of the arguments advanced in its favor, is sufficient to show the distinctly religious character of the proposed legislation. It is because the fourth commandment “is practically ignored” that it is deemed necessary to make provision “for the proper observance of Sunday.” It is because “some fair regard for the divine law” should be observed that it is proposed to make it a crime to engage in the ordinary pursuits of life, or to indulge in the usual sports and amusements “on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.” Only those are exempted from the provisions of this bill who are (1) “members of a religious society who observe as a sabbath any other day in the week than Sunday,” and who (2) “observe as a sabbath one day in each seven, as herein provided.” This exemption plainly shows that the real purpose of the proposed legislation is to secure sabbath observance; preferably the observance of the first day of the week as a sabbath, but the observance of some other day as a sabbath is tolerated. And yet it is declared in this report that the bill “imposes no restraint whatever upon the religious liberty of any citizen of the District.” The bill says, in effect, to every citizen of the District of Columbia: “You must observe one day in the week as the sabbath. If your religious convictions require you to observe any other day than Sunday, such sabbath observance will be accepted by the civil authority as satisfactorily meeting ‘the divine law;’ but in case you do not observe any other day, you must observe Sunday, whether you have any religious convictions in regard to the matter or not.” And this is “no restraint whatever upon the religious liberty of any citizen”! Such “religious liberty” as this was in vogue in the Dark Ages, the only apparent difference21being that in this case a belief and practise different from that of the majority is tolerated. But this apparent difference is a mere matter of sufferance, — a difference which, as experience has shown, may be obliterated at any time at the will of the majority, if the right to enact such a law is granted. By a strange and unaccountable misapprehension of the objections presented to this proposed legislation at the hearing granted by the Committee on the District of Columbia, it is stated in this report that “objection to the selection of the first day of the week instead of the seventh” was one of the reasons for opposing the bill, and to this supposed objection the reply is made “that to object because Sunday is chosen by the law-making power as the day of rest, and that it is the first day of the week and not the seventh, is to put the opposition distinctly on religious grounds.” As a matter of fact no such objection was made at the hearing. It is certain that the Seventh-day Adventists have never taken this ground. They are just as certainly opposed to any legislation requiring the observance of the seventh day of the week as to any legislation requiring the observance of the first day of the week. Any such legislation would be religious in character and wholly outside the sphere of civil government, and the question of the day does not change the character of the legislation. But if such objection places “the opposition distinctly on religious grounds,” what about the appeal in favor of such legislation on the ground that the fourth commandment “is practically ignored,” and that there should be “some fair regard for the divine law”? Is not this appeal based “distinctly on religious grounds”? — Plainly so; and, according to the logic of the report itself, this is “a sufficient answer” to those who propose such legislation. While it is true that Sunday is not the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and that the observance of Sunday as the sabbath is directly contrary to the express provisions of the fourth commandment, yet we do not base our opposition to the proposed legislation upon these grounds, nor ask for legislation in favor of the observance of the true Sabbath. This whole question of sabbath observance is outside the jurisdiction of civil authority, and belongs wholly to the realm of conscience. We are therefore opposed to any legislation which attempts to deal with this subject. As to the statement that there are not more than three hundred Seventh-day Adventists in a population of some three hundred thousand in the District of Columbia, we submit the following extract from a speech from C. C. Burleigh, Esq., at a religious liberty convention held in Boston, March 23, 24, 1848:— “The majority must rule! Shall the majority rule in matters of conscience? Can you count consciences? Can you count moral principles? Can you count the impulses of the heart, the faculties of the soul, the multitudinous cords that bind the individual to the universal heart? If you can, you may count majorities in cases of conscience. . . . Can you speak of ballots and ballot-boxes, of the ayes and noes of the legislative hall, against this right of individual conscience? It stands too high for legislative power to reach up to it.” We shall doubtless have occasion to refer to this bill and the report in future issues of the REVIEW. W. W. P.