Sunday Law Argument

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Apr 13, 1882

Sunday Law Argument.

The first trial in Sacramento under the Sunday Law, took place March 31st. Two witnesses were sworn, testifying that the accused kept open his place of business and transacted business on the Sunday. The defense offered no testimony. Judge McFarland appeared for the defense. The following are extracts from his argument:—

“Let there be no discrimination. This is not right; it is not law. In our country we have a constitutional government. We live under a written Constitution. The people themselves make our Constitution. This is the highest law. And if the Legislatures pass a statute in conflict with our Constitution it is not law, and should not be enforced or obeyed. The law under which my client is arraigned is nothing but a religious act. The heading of this law should read: ‘An Act to enforce religion.’ Don’t we know that that would be unconstitutional? Is this law in question a law of that nature? In America the church and State do not go together. Our forefathers laid it down that political and religious liberty should be protected. A law to enforce the observance of Sunday is nothing more or less than a religious law. In the statute complained of the words “crimes against religion” appear. Crimes against whose religion?—yours or mine? As long as I don’t interfere with your religious belief you have no right to interfere with mine. If you have a majority of the Legislature, you have no right to legislate or pass religious laws. In Utah the Mormons have the majority, and they legislate in favor of their religion. In a Christian community laws are passed in the interests of the Christian religion. Is that fair? The Constitution says: ‘The free exercise or performance of religious profession or worship without preference shall ever be allowed in this State.’ Is not this Sunday law directly in conflict with the Constitution? [Mr. McFarland read several decisions showing that the law in question has been agitated from time to time since the Colonial Government, and has always been decided by the best legal minds of our country to be unconstitutional and in direct opposition to American liberty.]

The Jew who observes Saturday, and is compelled to observe the Sunday also, is compelled to do that which is contrary to his religion, and which is a loss to him financially. Is it right? Is it just? It is perfect nonsense, and a perfect farce, to say that you are not discriminating between the Jew and the Christian. The Constitution says you shall not discriminate. You compel one man to keep two Sabbaths, and the other one. It is mere pretense to say that the enforcement of the Sunday law is not done in the interests of religion. It is a religious law, and the statute plainly says so. It may be a duty I owe to my family which compels me to work seven days in the week. Under the Constitution the Legislature has no right to say you, or you shall not do so. It is a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution of our State, and the Constitution of the United States. This case will be followed by about one hundred of a similar nature; therefore I crave your indulgence in making more extended remarks than I otherwise should. Your verdict, of course, whichever way it is given, will have its effect on the cases that follow. A verdict of acquittal in this case will virtually end this litigation. A hung jury will in no way decide the matter. I wish to read some decisions of the Supreme Court on this law, in cases where there was stronger evidence against the defendant than there is in the case of my client. [Mr. McFarland read decisions from the Supreme Court of California which were applicable to this case, and which hold that the law is a discriminating one, and one directly antagonistic to our Constitution.] In 1830 the religious people of the United States flooded Congress with petitions, asking the carrying of the United States mails on Sunday to be discontinued, claiming that this practice was sacrilegious. Our Government is a civil and not a religious institution. That men have a natural right to do what they desire, so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others, cannot be denied. As long as I do not encroach upon your rights to pursue your usual vocations, or interfere with your religious rites, you have no right to interfere with mine. Such laws are invasions on the rights of the people.”

“The decisions of a Court are not law, but simply interpretations. The Supreme Court of this State has decided time and again that this Sunday law was unconstitutional. For twenty years those decisions have stood and been recognized as authority. Now, because a Court by the smallest majority and largest minority, has decided that it is constitutional, does not make it law. A death on the Supreme Bench to-day might result in the rendering of an opinion with the majority on the other side. Any kind of a Sunday law has been held by all eminent jurists and all Supreme benches to be unconstitutional. This decision was a mere scratch, as you might say. The three men who were in the minority on that decision have as much ability as the

four who decided that it was a constitutional law. Three of the majority on that bench are strong religionists. Instead of this matter being a settled fact as far as its constitutionality is concerned, it is the most unsettled question in this State to-day.”

The jury were out fifteen minutes, and returned a verdict of “Not Guilty.”