Untitled article by C. P. B.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · February 16, 1893

The Tennessee Prosecutions for Sunday Labor.

By C. P. B.

THE past week has been an eventful one in the history of the “Adventist cases,” as they are familiarly called in Paris, even the Attorney-General using that term when addressing the Court.

Prior to last summer, about five thousand dollars had been spent in this State in defending persons accused of nuisance by violation of the Sunday laws; but apparently nothing was accomplished; and in the cases of last summer, practically no defense was made. The defendants simply made a statement to the Court that they were conscientious in working on Sunday, believing that they had a constitutional and God-given right to do so. They were, however, convicted, and upon refusal to pay the fine and costs, amounting in each case to about twenty-five dollars, were imprisoned in the county jail and required to work upon the streets in the chain-gang with several negroes convicted for larceny and other offenses against the State.

The facts just stated, coming to the knowledge of Prof. Jas. T. Ringgold, a member of the Baltimore Bar and Professor of Law in the Baltimore University, that gentleman proposed to the National Religious Liberty Association, through whose publications he had learned the facts, that if he were permitted to do so, he would appear and defend the persecuted men in the present cases. His kind offer was accepted both by the association and by the several defendants, and in order to afford Professor Ringgold every facility possible, Mr. W. L. Carter, of the bar of this place, was employed to assist him in the defense.

At this stage of the proceedings, Ex-Senator Tolley, of this State, appeared upon the scene, having been attracted by the notoriety of the “Adventist cases,” and by his interest in the principle involved. The ex-senator, who, by the way, is a Primitive Baptist, proposed that

his friend, Ex-Governor Porter, formerly judge of this judicial circuit and subsequently chief magistrate of the State, should also be brought into the case. Some doubt was expressed as to the possibility of securing the services of Judge Porter, but when asked if he would appear as counsel in behalf of the persecuted men, he not only consented, but, like Professor Ringgold, proposed to give his services freely because of his interest in the cases, his respect for the parties interested, and for the sake of the principle involved.

In an interview given to a reporter of the Memphis Commercial, and published in that paper on the 3rd inst., Governor Porter said:—

My consent to take part in defending these cases is not based upon any sympathy with the peculiar tenets of the denomination to which these defendants belong, but is simply due to my desire to vindicate the rights and liberties of all citizens in our State. I believe that the action of our courts with reference to this question of compulsory Sunday idleness has hitherto been in contravention of the principles of American liberty, as well as contrary to the expressed provision of the constitution of our State, according to my construction of it in regard to religious-equality, and I am gratified to have the opportunity of doing what I can to reverse that action in the interest of humanity and of true liberty, as I understand it. I have always understood that these people are peaceable and law-abiding citizens, and I have yet to learn that the acts for which they are indicted have injured or discommoded their fellow-citizens in any way, or interfered in the slightest with any substantial rights of others. Regarding them as I do, as the representatives of a great principle, apart altogether from the religious aspects of their belief or their conduct, I have no hesitation in saying that I sincerely hope that they will successfully emerge from their present legal difficulty.

Upon examination, the attorneys found that several of the indictments were defective. These, six in number, were quashed by the court upon motion. This left but two cases for trial at this term; and, at this writing, only one of these has been disposed of, namely that of W. D. Dortch, described in the indictment as “Billy Dortch.” This case was taken up on the third instant and resulted in a verdict of acquittal, without the jury leaving their seats.

It was proved in Mr. Dortch’s case that he had worked on two separate and distinct Sundays. On one occasion he was seen, by two witnesses, working in his garden, and on another, he was seen, by one witness, “piling chunks” in a clearing on the back part of his farm. The Attorney-General made a desperate effort to prove that it was the custom of the defendant to work on Sunday, even going so far as to subpoena and attempt to put upon the stand, Mr. Dortch’s own son, a boy of only ten years of age. But this, Judge Swiggart would not permit.

In his plea to the jury, the Attorney-General made an effort to appeal to their religious prejudices, but upon objection, the Judge instructed him to confine his remarks to the record. This left him with but little to say and not in first-class humor for saying it; nevertheless he continued for several minutes pleading for a verdict of conviction, which he insisted the jury must bring in or else violate their oath.

The charge of the Judge was very fair, and so was destructive to all the hopes of the prosecution; and at its conclusion the Attorney-General abandoned the case, saying that the State would consent to an acquittal, and so, with the consent of the jury, the Judge at once entered a verdict of not guilty, and the case was at an end.

The attorneys are very anxious to take one case to the Supreme Court, feeling confident that a favorable termination can be reached there; and so have proposed to submit the remaining case upon a statement of facts, covering all the salient points at issue. It is probable, however, that the Attorney-General, who is more of a politician than a lawyer, will not agree to such a presentation as will get the facts fairly before the court of last resort, and that no appeal can be made to the Supreme Court at this time, as he has it in his power to refuse to try the remaining case at this term of court.

Public sentiment has changed a good deal in this county since the trials last summer. The attitude assumed toward “Adventist cases” by such men as Professor Ringgold, Ex-Senator Tolley, and Ex-Governor Porter has set people to thinking, and while bigotry and intolerance still live here they are becoming ashamed and are found hiding under various subterfuges.

Judge Swiggart has evidently grown tired of having his court turned into a religious inquisition, and while his view of the law and his understanding of the decision of the Supreme Court compel him to lend himself to some extent to persecution for conscience’ sake, there is small room to doubt that he has no sympathy for the persecution and that he would be heartily glad to see the court of last resort reverse its own decision in the Parker case, thus leaving him free to order a discontinuance of the proceedings against the Adventists in his district. More details and farther interesting facts will be given in future letters.

C. P. B.

Paris, Tenn.