Sunday Laws and Workingmen.
By C. P. BOLLMAN
A STANDARD argument for more rigid Sunday laws in this country is that the “working people” may have a day of rest. The case is thus stated by Senator Blair, the father of the now famous Sunday-Rest bill:- “The mass of the working people would never get Sunday rest if there had not been a law of the land that gave it to us. There is that practical fact, and we are fighting for the tired, hungry man, woman, and child all over the country who wants a chance to lie down and rest for twenty-four hours out of the whole seven days.”
Just so; and “to lie down and rest for twenty-four hours,” or else go to church, is about the only chance that poor people would have under the regime proposed by the American Sabbath Union, the W. C. T. U., and National Reformers generally. In fact, the measures which they propose and to which Senator Blair has been lending himself would of necessity discriminate against the very class which it is proposed to benefit. Only those who live in cities can appreciate the privilege of an occasional outing in the country, or at least in some suburban park. But these pseudo philanthropists propose to place all such luxuries beyond the reach of the poor by stopping all public conveyances on Sunday. Now the tired son of toil, in almost any city, whenever the weather is suitable, can take his family on Sunday and by means of street cars, ferry boats, excursion steamers, or excursion trains, can in a very short time reach some park or other pleasant resort, more or less frequented, according to his tastes; and in some such place the workingman and his wife and children can spend the day more healthfully, more restfully, and more pleasantly than would be possible in the average tenement house. But under the new order of things, to be ushered in by a national Sunday law and by more stringent State laws, such privileges can be enjoyed only by the rich. Not being dependent upon public conveyances, the wealthy can, if they choose, leave their pleasant homes and drive to the parks or into the country, and enjoy upon Sunday that which they, but not the “working people,” can have the privilege of enjoying almost any day. But meanwhile the poor man and his family can literally “lie down and rest for twenty-four hours.” But how many care to do293that? and how much real rest is there in it if they did, especially for the tired mother who has scarcely been out of the house for a week, and for the children who desire nothing so much as a breath of fresh air and a sight of the trees and fields? But it is said, “Let the whole family go to church.” A good suggestion certainly; but suppose they do not wish to go to church? Who has the right to so hedge them about with restrictive laws that they will be compelled either to go to church or spend the entire day at home, or on the street, or at least within easy walking distance of home? Would not the effect of such laws be to shut the tired wife and mother up at home week after week, to put the children on the streets at least one day in the week, and send the husband and father to spend the day in some secret drinking resort? But why pursue the subject further? The real purpose of Sunday laws is not to benefit the working people but to exalt and honor the day as a religious institution, and to compel people to attend church by closing as far as possible every avenue of pleasure. In fact this purpose has been boldly avowed more than once by the friends of Sunday laws. Sabbath-keeping is good, and religion is good, but enforced idleness is not Sabbath-keeping neither is it religion, nor is it conducive to true religion.