Untitled article | AdventAI

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · August 4, 1892

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 30

The Evil Precedent is Established.

[In the House of Representatives, on July 15 and 16, Mr. Wheeler, of Alabama, spoke on the sundry civil bill. His remarks upon the question of the governmental closing of the World's Fair, on Sunday, are reprinted here.]

Mr. CHAIRMAN, there are other things in this bill to which I am seriously opposed. I am opposed to the Congress of the United States legislating on the subject of the local affairs of the people of Illinois. Illinois already has, and for half a century has had, on her statute books possibly the most stringent Sunday law of any State in the Union, except Pennsylvania, and the Pennsylvania law and the Illinois law are, I believe, copies of each other.

The Illinois Sunday law of 1845 prescribes that—

Whoever disturbs the peace and good order of society by labor (works of necessity and charity excepted), or by any amusement or diversion on Sunday, shall be fined not exceeding twenty-five dollars, and whoever shall be guilty of any noise, rout, or amusement on the first day of the week, called Sunday, whereby the peace of any private family may be disturbed, shall be fined not exceeding twenty-five dollars.

If the penalty is not sufficiently severe to preserve perfect order, the Legislature of Illinois and the municipal authorities of Chicago can increase its severity. I believe in Christianity; I believe in the holy Sabbath day, but I do not believe in the Congress of the United States violating its functions by legislating on that subject.

Mr. Chairman, there are very many reasons why Congress should not enact a law requiring the Exposition to close its gates on Sunday. If we take control of the Exposition by such legislation we can not avoid the responsibility of its success and we can not refuse appropriations for its maintenance, and I also think it much better for the people of Illinois to legislate upon this subject than for Congress to commence enacting laws of that character. I do not propose to criticise the amendment which the gentleman from Illinois has presented to the House. I desire to say that I am opposed to any legislation by Congress with regard to the morals or religion of the people of Illinois. Legislation upon religious subjects by Congress is strictly prohibited by the Constitution:—

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Mr. Livingston.—The gentleman does not consider the Sunday question as a religious question?

Mr. Wheeler, of Alabama.—Yes, sir; I consider the Sunday question as one of the utmost importance to the Christian religion. I regard the keeping of the fourth commandment as imperative, and I believe that all persons should “remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,” but I insist that it does not matter what plan is adopted in efforts which are made to inject religious legislation in Congress, the result is bound to be detrimental to Christianity.

When the Congress of the United States attempts to interfere with the religious rights or customs of the people of any State by undertaking to regulate their observance of Sunday, or in other religious matters, then Congress is trespassing—it is treading on unconstitutional ground, and trespassing on grounds that the history of the world shows has been the foundation of great harm to the cause of religion.

It does not make any difference whether we proceed directly or indirectly. Whether we approach the question by positive legislation or by proviso and conditions, as is done in this case, no possible good can result, and it is establishing a precedent which can be used for great evil to the cause of Christianity, and my judgment is sustained in this by many eminent divines and most devout Christians. Their views are that all laws regarding religion should be enacted by local law-making powers.

A law enacted by the Congress of a country so extended as ours, even though with the best intentions, very possibly might be very unsatisfactory to the religious views of all the people to be affected. In fact, it is more than probable that a law on this subject might be pleasing to the people of Maine and yet not at all pleasing to the religious views of the people of California, and a law pleasing to the people of one denomination might be very unsatisfactory to the people of another denomination. Therefore our forefathers felt that the best plan was to allow the States to make all laws upon this important and sacred subject.

The men who framed the article of our fundamental law, which I have read, remembered that the seizure and persecution of our Saviour Jesus Christ was under regularly enacted Roman laws. They remembered that in 1660 Bunyan was sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment for “teaching men to worship contrary to law,” and for “upholding meetings contrary to the laws of the king.” They remembered that in the great State of Virginia, on the 4th day of June, 1768, John Waller, Louis Craig, and James Childs were sent to jail, the prosecuting attorney, in presenting the case to the court, said:—

May it please your courtship, these men are great disturbers of the peace; they can not meet a man upon the road but they must ram a passage of scripture down his throat.

They knew that in the State of Maryland a few years prior to the adoption of this amendment pious men were jailed for “preaching the gospel of the word of God.” It was the knowledge that laws upon religion enacted by law-making powers distant from and foreign to the people had caused wrongs and persecutions that suggested to our forefathers the propriety of incorporating in the very First Amendment, and first paragraph of that amendment, and first words of the paragraph, the provision prohibiting legislation of this character by Congress. I have great confidence in the people of Illinois and the people of Chicago, and do not deem it necessary for Congress to undertake to interfere in such matters.

I do not like the method adopted. Congress proposes to take $5,000,000 of the people's hard-earned money and give it to a rich corporation. This is a very wrong thing, and one they have no right to do. To palliate this great wrong inflicted upon the people who pay taxes, they couple this gift with what they claim is a very good proviso or condition—that is to say, Congress will give $5,000,000 of the public money to this rich corporation upon condition that the rich, soulless corporation will promise to not open their gates on Sunday.