Exemption Clauses in Sunday Laws.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
The Christian Oracle of April 25 contains an article from a fair-minded correspondent, upon “License and Sunday Laws.” In it he makes the following reference to one who had previously written to the same paper:— “He says that if the Blair bill should pass, and a strict Sunday law be passed, Adventists could obey the law without any violation of their religious principles. True; but if you forbid them doing any manual labor on that day you rob them of one-sixth of their power to earn a living for their families—or at $2.00 per day it would amount to $104 annually. Without their consent, is that American liberty? Suppose you rest on Sunday, and we pass a law to prohibit you from working Mondays; how would that suit you? Brethren, we don’t want a Sunday law unless it has a proviso that those who conscientiously keep the Sabbath shall not be prohibited from performing their usual occupation on Sunday. The Constitution is good enough as it is.” The writer of the above evidently believes in equal and exact justice to all; but he has not given the Sunday question sufficient thought, or he would know that there can never be any justice in connection with a Sunday law. In the150first place, a seventh-day Christian could not obey a Sunday law without violating his conscience. It is not necessary, however, to dwell upon this, since the writer would not have such compelled to rest on Sunday, because, as he rightly says, such compulsion would be robbery. But those who have given much thought to the subject, whether friends or foes of Sunday legislation, know that no law can long be enforced with exceptions. We say that it is utterly impossible to enforce a Sunday law that makes an exemption in favor of those who observe the seventh day. Such a thing never has been done, and never will be done. True, there are Sunday laws which exempt observers of the seventh day; but those laws are never enforced. They remain upon the statute books as dead letters. When the time comes that enough people get in earnest to have them enforced, they secure the repeal of the exemption clause. Then they can enforce the law, and not before. Take the case of Arkansas as an example. It had for a long time a Sunday law which made an exemption in favor of seventh-day people. But that law was not enforced. No attempt was made to enforce it. Finally some unco guid people concluded that the law ought to be enforced. But they could not enforce it as it was. Why?—Because there was really nothing to enforce. The exemption in favor of seventh-day observers deprived the law of all its force. So they pleaded for the repeal of that exemption section, so that no non-religious person could evade the law by professing to be an observer of the seventh day. There is no evidence that any person had ever done so; but the Sunday-law people saw plainly that that could easily be done, and that to attempt to enforce a Sunday law with an exemption section, would be like trying to trap a fox with two holes to his den. So they stopped up all chance of escape, by securing the repeal of that obnoxious section. Then the law was enforced for the first time in its existence. And right vigorously was it enforced too. Then the saloon keepers had to suffer, didn’t they? Not much. They sold whisky as openly as ever, and were not even indicted therefor. It was enforced against those who had rested on Saturday, and against no others. The National Reformers of Arkansas seemed to feel a special interest in the physical welfare of the Seventh-day Adventists and the Seventh-day Baptists, for they sought to compel them to rest after they had already rested, while others were left free not to rest at all. This prosecution went on until public indignation demanded that simple toleration, if not justice, should be granted to those observers of the seventh day, all of whom were good citizens. So a bill was introduced and passed, which granted to conscientious observers of the seventh day immunity from the pains and penalties of the Sunday law. The result was that the prosecution ceased. No attempt has been made since to enforce the law. Surely this is far more than merely suggestive. Now a National Sunday law is desired. Its advocates make a great show of liberality, and say that they are going to see that it exempts those who observe the seventh day. The Blair bill, however, made no such exemption. Nevertheless, many fair-minded persons are caught by the pretension to liberality on the part of the National Reformers and the American Sabbath Union. But let it not be forgotten that the object of this proposed National Sunday law is to make efficient existing State Sunday laws. But it cannot give efficiency to them unless it is itself “efficient;” and it may be accepted as a fact that it will be no exception to previous laws, and cannot be enforced so long as it makes any exemption of those who observe another day. So the exemption will be allowed to remain only till the law is secured, and when the time comes to enforce it, the exemption will be repealed. That is the way it is done. Exemption clauses in Sunday laws are frauds. They are designed only to delude fair-minded persons into favoring the enactment of the law, and they never serve any other purpose. Let all lovers of justice pay no heed to the voice of the National Reform charmer, charm he never so wisely. E. J. W.