Secretary Foster’s Leap in Logic.
By A. Delos Westcott
SECRETARY FOSTER, of the National Reform Association, has a letter in the Christian Statesman, of April 18, in which he says:— “But even on the secular theory, Sabbath laws should be enforced. Man has an inalienable right to the seventh part of time for rest. The Government, as the institution of human rights, should secure this right. That would prohibit all common labor on the Sabbath.” We pity the intelligence of the man who is honest in such an argument. Secretary Foster, haven’t you the civil right to rest on Wednesday, if you want to? Is it any of our business, or the Government’s business, if you lay aside your National Reform nonsense, and indulge in absolute rest every Wednesday? Don’t hesitate; tell the truth, and say, No. Very well, “the Government as the institution of human rights should secure this right. That would prohibit all common labor on” Wednesday. And haven’t you the right so far as the civil government is concerned, to rest every day if you have money to pay your bills?—Certainly you have, and it is the duty of the Government to secure to you this right. “That would prohibit all common labor” forever.173 Now, Mr. Secretary, for the sake of your own cause, don’t give it and yourself away by any more such absurd arguments. But you will ask, How are the railroad men going to keep Sunday? Answer—By refusing to work. Didn’t they know when they went into that kind of work that they would be asked to work on Sunday? If a man is anxious to keep Sunday, will he deliberately enter into a contract which requires him to work on that day? Is there any law on the statute books of this country that requires any man to enter into a contract with a railroad company against his will? One would suppose there must be, to hear these would-be reformers talking about securing the rights of the workingmen. But there is not; and no railroad company can compel any man to work on Sunday if he does not want to work. If the railroad men wanted to keep Sunday they would keep it, and the trains would be obliged to stop for want of men to run them. But in order to get these men to rest they are obliged to pass a law compelling all trains to stop on Sunday; and then, when the trains are stopped, the men still refuse to rest, so they ask for another law to keep the men from engaging in some other kind of work, or in games and amusements, on that day. How these railroad men must be clamoring for Sunday, when they will not keep it unless they are absolutely obliged to! Again, there is a principle involved in this question which seems to be overlooked, namely, the principle of governmental interference with private contracts. If, on the ground of protection to the public health, it is proper to interfere with a private contract by which a man voluntarily agrees to work on Sunday, then, on the same ground, and with the same propriety, all night work should be strictly forbidden. From a physical standpoint, a law prohibiting night labor would be ten times more valuable than any kind of a Sunday law. No one thing has so much to do with breaking down young men as night labor and night debauchery. Why not compel people to go to bed at nine o’clock? How plausible, and yet how dangerous! That man whose time is not his own, every moment of it, except when needed in the service of his country, is a slave. No one has the right to interfere with any man’s time, against his consent, so long as he does not interfere by force with the rights of others. No railroad company forces anyone to work on Sunday. This is an article in their contract to which the laborer voluntarily consents. On the principle that the Government has a right to compel a man to rest, it may also control by law all the voluntary functions of nature. It may command him when to sleep, when and how much to eat, and how much exercise to take. It may regulate and appropriate his property with absolute authority. A man’s time is his property, and if you may tell him how he is to spend his time, you may tell him how he is to spend his other property. The Christian Statesman quotes from Mr. Kennan as follows:— “The theory upon which the Government of Russia proceeds is that the citizen . . . is incompetent to manage even the affairs of his own household; and that, from the time when he leaves his cradle and begins the struggle of life, down to the time when his weary gray head is finally laid under the sod, he must be guided, directed, instructed, restrained, repressed, regulated, fenced in, fenced out, braced up, kept down, and made to do generally what somebody else thinks is best for him.” “Weary of Ishmaelitism in theology and upon questions of public morals,” the Russian Government enforces upon all the “laws of Christian morality” as defined on its statute books. In harmony with the public-health argument for Sunday laws, they “prove that political interests are to be placed before the rights of religion,” and offer “political necessities and expediences” as a sufficient excuse for the adoption and enforcement of a national standard of religion. It is astonishing to hear National Reformers condemn the Government of Russia for carrying out the same principles which they are seeking to establish in our own Government. They seem willing to resort to any artifice whereby their own popularity and influence may be increased. Let us watch the viper while we gather the roses.