Untitled article by C. P. B.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · July 31, 1890

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 30

A Fallacy.

By C. P. B.

ONE of the latest attempts to show that there exists a purely civil basis for Sunday laws, and that so far as Sunday laws exist in this country, they exist upon a civil basis, is an article in the May New Englander, by Dr. William Atterbury of this city. On this point, Dr. Atterbury says:—

The distinction was made between the Sabbath as an institution of religion, and the observance of Sunday as a civil institution. This distinction has been carefully preserved by legislatures and courts. Sunday laws are now upon the statute books of every State but California. In general, these laws forbid common labor and traffic, except in cases of necessity or mercy; public or noisy amusements, and whatever is likely to disturb the quiet and order of the day. They make Sunday a non-legal day; courts may not sit, nor legal processes be served, except in specified cases. It will be seen that they do not enforce or prohibit any observance of religion. They leave each man free to do or to omit doing on Sunday what he chooses, within restrictions which are deemed necessary to the public peace, order, and general welfare. There is no interference with the liberty of conscience. Neither the religious nor the irreligious character of the acts forbidden is assumed.

Let us examine this matter a little and see how “carefully” legislatures and courts have preserved this “distinction.” In the case of Bramhall vs. Van Campen, (8 Minnesota Reports, 13), Judge Flandrau, of the Supreme Court of Minnesota, gave the opinion that “the Sabbath laws of that State can have no other object than the enforcement of the fourth of God’s commandments.” In the Supreme Court of Texas, Judge Caldwell held that “the object of the Legislature was to forbid all secular employments on the Sabbath, not excepted in the act. The disregard of the Sabbath, the refusal to recognize it as a day sanctified to holy purposes, constitutes the offense.” (Elsner vs. the State, 30 Texas Reports, 524.) In deciding one of these Sunday cases the Supreme Court of Alabama also said: “We do not think the design of the Legislature in the passage of the act can be doubted. It was evidently to promote morality and advance the interests of religion, by prohibiting all persons from engaging in their common and ordinary vocations.” (O’Donnel vs. Sweeney, 5 Alabama Reports, 467. See also Wright vs. Geer, 1 Root, 474; Fox vs. Able, 2 Connecticut Reports, 548; George vs. George, 47 New Hampshire Reports, 27.)

It is scarcely necessary to add anything to this testimony of the courts of these States; the Judges who delivered these opinions probably knew more about the intent of the law-makers than does Dr. Atterbury. It would seem, however, that it ought not to require Supreme Court decisions to convince anyone that the religious character of the day is the only real basis of Sunday laws; this is certainly the case, and the Judges whose opinions have been given, have simply recognized the fact without seeking to change it in the least.

Again, Dr. Atterbury says: “In general these laws [the Sunday laws of the several States] forbid common labor and business,” etc.; that is true, but the term generally used is not “common labor or business,” but “secular labor or business.” This is the term used both in the Blair Sunday-rest Bill and in the Breckinridge Bill, and in this they only follow the language of the statutes of most of the States. Webster defines “secular” as “Pertaining to this present world, or to things not spiritual or holy; relating to

things not immediately or primarily respecting the soul, but the body; worldly.” The contrast implied by the use of this word cannot be ignored. According to the definition quoted above, the word “secular” is opposed to religious and spiritual; and we are surprised that anyone should say that in such laws “neither the religious nor the irreligious character of the acts forbidden is assumed.” It is impossible to forbid “secular” labor or business without assuming the religious character of the acts permitted, or rather the religious character of the acts to which the day is to be devoted.

Substituting the definition for the word “secular,” we have this paraphrase of that portion of the Blair Bill which prohibits secular work or business on Sunday: “No person, or the agent, or servant, or employe, of any person or corporation, shall perform on Sunday, or authorize to be performed, any work, labor, or business pertaining to this world, or to things not spiritual or holy, works of necessity and mercy excepted.” Now the bill means just the same with the word “secular” in it that it does with the definition of the word, and it means no more than do the Sunday laws of very many of the States. The fact is, that Sunday laws are made because of the regard that people have for the day as a religious institution, and the so-called civil basis for it is a recent discovery, sought out for the purpose of meeting the arguments against such legislation. C. P. B.