p. 246 | Untitled article

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · August 7, 1890

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 31

A Lawyer's View of the Nature of Sunday Laws.

In his brief in the well-known King case, recently passed upon by the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Col. T. E. Richardson, attorney for the plaintiff in error, gave the following history of the law under which Mr. King was indicted:—

The only statutes on the subject will be found in the act of 1741, enacted by His Excellency, Gabriel Johnson, Esq., Governor, by and with the consent of His Majesty’s council, and General Assembly of the province of North Carolina; and is as follows:—

Whereas, in well-regulated governments effectual care is always taken that the day set apart for public worship be observed and kept holy, all and every person or persons whatsoever shall, on the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday, carefully apply themselves to the duties of religion and piety; and no tradesman, artificer, laborer, or other person whatsoever, shall upon the land or water, do or exercise any labor, business, or work of their ordinary callings—works of necessity and charity only, excepted—nor employ themselves either in hunting, fishing, or fowling, nor use any game, sport, or play, on the Lord’s day aforesaid, or any part thereof, upon pain that any person so offending, being of the age of fourteen years and upwards, shall forfeit and pay the sum of one dollar and twenty-five cents. All and every Justice and Justices of the Peace, within his or their respective counties, shall have full power and authority to convene before him or them, any person or persons who shall offend in any of the particulars before mentioned, in his or their hearing, or on other legal conviction of any such offense, and to impose the said fine or penalty for the same. See laws of Tennessee, Scott’s Edition, Vol. 1, page 55.

This act was passed when the church was a part of the State—when there was a State religion. Its purpose was that Sunday should be kept holy. After the Revolution, this act seems to have been retained amongst the statutes of North Carolina, as well as incorporated in the laws of Tennessee. And in 1803, after the admission of Tennessee, as a State, into the Union, the Legislature passed an act entitled as follows:—

An act more effectually to prevent the profanation of the Lord’s day, commonly called the Sabbath.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, that if any merchant, artificer, tradesman, farmer, or any other person shall be guilty of doing or exercising any of the common avocations of life or causing or permitting the same to be done, by his, her, or their children or servants, acts of real necessity or charity excepted, on the Lord’s day, commonly called Sabbath, such person or persons on due conviction thereof before any Justice of the Peace within the county where such offense shall be committed, shall forfeit and pay the sum of three dollars, one-half to the person who shall sue for the same, the other half for the use of the county wherein such recovery may be had. This act was passed November 3, 1803. See laws of Tennessee, Scott’s Edition, Vol. 1, page 795; also Car. & Nich., Art. “Sabbath,” pages 638, 639.

Can there be any doubt that the act of 1741 was passed to favor and promote Christianity, and also the interests of the Church of England? then the religion and Church of the State. Is it not equally plain that the act of 1803 was passed to promote and give preference to the Christian religion? that it was passed to prevent the profanation of a day sacred to certain persons claiming to be members of the Christian Church, or of certain sects of Christians? This Court knows historically, if not judicially, of the wonderful revivals and wide-spread religious excitement in the year 1800. They created a deep and lasting impression upon the people. They prevailed most extensively throughout the States of Kentucky and Tennessee. They were conducted principally by the Presbyterians and Methodists, and the power and influence then obtained by the latter, are felt and seen to the present time.

That the act of 1803 was the result of those revivals, and passed in obedience to the behests of those churches and to conform to their religious views, no one can doubt. That the law was enacted to compel the observance of Sunday in conformity with their tenets, and to coerce the conscience of all persons who might differ with those sects, can be denied by no candid mind.

By those acts exclusive jurisdiction was given to Justices of the Peace, to try, and punish those who violate their provisions. For nearly a century no member of the Bar or Bench ever dreamed or held that the Circuit Courts of the State, had jurisdiction over the offense, as created by those acts.

For a half century or more after the passage of the act of 1803, it was regarded as the expression of earnest but fanatical zeal, and was allowed to fall into “innocuous desuetude.” It is the fit instrument of petty persecution, and has been seldom used, even by the most earnest of zealots.

To the credit of the Christian people of the State, it can be truly said, they have generally scorned to use such means of persecution or coercion.