Untitled article by George E. Fifield

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · September 3, 1891

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 6, No. 35

The Massachusetts Sunday Law.

By George E. Fifield

Here, in New England, when the Arkansas persecutions, and the celebrated King case are referred to, it is often urged that these things are made possible in the United States, only by the ignorance, and consequent bigotry of the poorer classes in the South. They still fondly fancy that in enlightened New England, their Sunday laws, whatever their origin, would be enforced, if at all, only by kind hearted philanthropists, and for the benefit of the over-weary and hard-pressed toilers. Such forget the fact that law, when once on the statute book, is open to enforcement by every citizen, the most ignorant and bigoted, as well as the most enlightened and philanthropic. The courts can make no distinctions. The judge and the jury may know that the motive of the complainant is one of petty spite, or narrow persecution, and that the complainant himself breaks the law he tries to enforce, and yet if the law has been broken, they must decide against the defendant. They can not even bring their judgment as to the justice or injustice of the law, into consideration at all, for this would be for the judiciary to exceed the proper limits of its authority, and take upon itself the functions of the Legislature. Already there have been some as genuine cases of persecution here in Massachusetts, as any recorded in Tennessee or Arkansas.

Some six years ago, Mr. Albert Weare and a friend, both Seventh-day Adventists, having religiously observed the day previous, were quietly working in a barn in the rear of their house, in the city of Worcester. On that same day, several hundred men, who had not observed the day previous, were noisily working on a street railroad in one of the principal streets of the city; and some two thousand of the citizens were out on a gala-day at a popular pleasure resort near by. None of these were disturbed, but an officer, induced to act as a spy, walked down that very street past the men who were working on the railroad, and watched and listened outside the barn, till sufficient evidence was secured; then arrested those men, and prosecuted them, compelling them to pay a fine.

This in enlightened Massachusetts, shows that some of the people at least, are still true to the memory of their sires, who drove out the Baptists, and whipped the Quakers, and hung the witches.

Another manifestation of this same spirit occurred only a few days since. Mr. Stacy of Springfield, received the following letter, a police officer acting as carrier:

Springfield, Mass., August 6, 1891.

H. H. STACY, ESQ.—Dear Sir: I am informed that the game of croquet is played on the Lord’s day, by yourself and others, on your premises at Number 138 King Street. Your attention is respectfully called to the following extract from the public statutes, chapter ninety-eight, section two.

“Whoever on the Lord’s day . . . takes part in any sport, game, or play, or except as allowed or prohibited in the preceding sections, is present at any dancing or public diversion, show, game, or entertainment, shall be punished by fine not exceeding fifty dollars for each offense.”

I presume that you consider yourself justified in playing games on the Lord’s day by section thirteen of the same chapter, but if you will read it carefully you will see that while it permits persons who conscientiously believe that the seventh day of the week ought to be observed as a Sabbath, and who actually refrain from secular business on that day, to engage in such business on the Lord’s day if they do not disturb other people thereby, it does not include games, and sports, and therefore such games and sports are unlawful on that day.

In calling your attention to the matter in this way I am actuated by a desire to secure compliance with the law for the future without the disagreeable features attending a prosecution in the courts, and also to prevent future complaint from people living in your vicinity.

Respectfully, F. G. SOUTHMAYD, City Marshal.

Mr. Stacy is a Seventh-day Adventist. He had played croquet only twice on Sunday. The people who complained of him were some good (?) Sunday keeping (?) neighbors of his, who, at the time they saw him playing croquet, were themselves out with a party of friends, having a merry pleasure ride on the sacred day. The conscience that can distinguish between riding out for pleasure on Sunday, and playing croquet for pleasure on Sunday, and make one a sin and a crime, and the other perfectly innocent, must be gifted with Jesuitical powers of casuistry.

It seems, however, from the decision of the City Marshal of Springfield, that not only the elastic consciences of the complainants, but even the law of the State, makes such fine distinctions. The Sunday law of Massachusetts exempts from

all its penalties, the letting of teams, and consequently the use of teams for purposes of pleasure, on Sunday, and yet it condemns all games and sports on that day. Section thirteen, referred to in the letter of the Marshal, reads as follows:—

Whoever conscientiously believes that the seventh day of the week ought to be observed as the Sabbath, and actually refrains from secular business and labor on that day, shall not be liable to the penalties of this chapter for performing secular business, travel, or labor on the Lord’s day, if he disturbs no other person.

It is the evident intent of this section to cover the penalties of the chapter, and exempt the seventh-day observer, provided he disturbs no other person, but as secular business and labor are specified, and sports are not, the Marshal of Springfield decides that the seventh-day observer may work on Sunday, but he cannot play.

All this is but another illustration of the worthlessness of exemptions. They are but class legislation anyhow, and if the Government confined itself to its legitimate sphere of protecting and maintaining the inherent rights of its subjects, instead of despotically invading those rights, they would never be needed or thought of.

All such legislation as this, is a direct invasion of inherent rights, and a disgrace to our boasted civilization. We look for Massachusetts yet to come to the very front in this iniquitous religio-political movement. The blood of her Puritan ancestry still runs in her veins, with its taint of bigotry, as well as its sturdy virtues.

The speech of Congressman Morse of Massachusetts, in the Washington Sunday law convention, two years ago, was noticeable for its puritanic indifference to the rights of conscience, and its advocacy of straight religious legislation, without even the thinnest veil of the “civil Sunday law” sham.

In fact everywhere here in the East, the “civil Sunday” is less talked about, and in all the numerous mass meetings and conventions of the American Sabbath Union, and its allies, the enforcing of strictly religious Sunday laws, is unblushingly advocated.

If this is what they really want, as we know it is, we are glad to have them say so. Even a wolf is less dangerous, when every one knows it is a wolf, than when many imagine it is only a “civil” lamb.

G. E. FIFIELD.