A Non-Religious Basis for Legislation.
WHEN we object to Sunday legislation on religious grounds, we are asked how the right of labor shall be maintained against overwork, and the greed of capital. It is clearly within the province of the commonwealth to enter upon general legislation relative to this question. Where religious regard for any day is lacking, compulsory idleness results in holidayism. This is a universal fact in history. It is evident that legislation, hitherto, has reached little practical good in solving the problem as between capital and labor. The different phases of that question, regardless of religious considerations, are becoming more and more important, as well as more intricate. This, and the conflict over the question of legislation from a religious standpoint, unite to compel careful attention to the subject. While it may not be demanded of us to furnish a better basis because we object to the religious basis, we yet suggest the following as helpful toward a solution of the problem:— 1. Let the commonwealth and the national government undertake a series of inquiries and observations which shall determine what is best for society, apart from religious considerations as to statute regulations relative to labor and time. Something has already been done in this direction. The investigations on this point which are of value are those reported in 1884 by Carroll D. Wright, with reference to Sunday labor in Massachusetts. This report shows that while there is a large percentage of such labor, it is mainly in connection with the service of one man for another; and that in such service there is neither loss of wages nor impairment of health through Sunday labor. It also reveals the fact that while some of those engaged preferred not to work every day in the week, it was not compulsory labor in general. It is clear that the commonwealth may not go beyond self-protection in any such legislation. Neither can it require men to do, from a religious standpoint, those things which religious obligations impose, however desirable, when such refusal does not interfere with civil government. We need investigations similar to those made by Mr. Wright, throughout the United States, and extending over a sufficient period of time to give a basis for scientific legislation touching these points. Such examination by State and national authority, working in concert, is the first essential step toward wise and efficient legislation on this question. As helpful suggestions toward wise-conclusions, we make the following:— (1) Start with the principle that the province of the civil law is protective, in general, rather than compulsory. The largest liberty must be given to individual choice, in order to avoid governmental tyranny, the dwarfing of individual manhood, and the destruction of individual responsibility. The following suggestions are supported by the conclusion which the best thinkers have now reached. Let there be a “ten-hour law” fixing the limit for a day’s work; all overwork on the part of adults must be left to the individual choice. 2. Guarantee to each man one full day’s rest each week. This should be permissible, and protective legislation, and not compulsory. Guarantee this as a civil right, without reference to religious obligation. Let this guarantee include the right, on the part of each man, to choose the day on which he will rest. Require the choice to be mutual between employer and employe. If men do not choose to rest on any day, the law cannot compel them thus to rest any more than it can compel men to eat and drink in accordance with the laws of health. This simple arrangement would allow all who wish to observe any day for religious reasons, full liberty, and full protection in so doing. If necessary, let it be supplemented by such protective legislation with reference to religious assemblies as would insure the constitutional right guaranteed to every man, to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience. Resting from secular business on religious grounds is at once a sacrifice and an act of worship. It should therefore be protected, but may not be compelled. The legislation here suggested would make little disturbance, if any, in the social and business status of things as they now exist. It would check the tendency so marked in certain quarters, to return to the pagan theory of compulsory religious legislation, and to the unavoidable union of Church and State, which must follow such legislation. It would protect labor against the greed of capital, and if, as advocates of stricter legislation insist—labor is now the main sufferer in the matter of time—it would compel capital to adjust itself to the rights of labor, along this protective line. The laborer would find full relief under such legislation, and crystallized labor in the form of capital would bear the burden, if there were any.—The Outlook.