Untitled article | AdventAI

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

To Try the Case upon Its Merits.

A CORRESPONDENT for the Memphis Commercial, at the Seventh-day Adventist trials at Paris, Tenn., publishes an interview had previous to the calling of the cases, with Professor James T. Ringgold, who was there for the purpose of taking part in the defense. Mr. Ringgold is a member of the Baltimore Bar and lecturer in the Baltimore Law School. This is what Mr. Ringgold said:—

“I suppose you want me to tell you how I came to be here, and what I expect to do. I have taken considerable interest for a number of years in the Sunday law question, and through a work on that subject which I recently wrote, I became acquainted with the National Religious Liberty Association, which I found to be composed largely of ‘Seventh-Day Adventists.’ As the association and myself had a warm joint interest in the cause of religious liberty, we have ever since been in correspondence. When I learned of the proceedings against the Seventh-day Adventists in this county, which are similar to those to which our Hebrew fellow-citizens are occasionally subjected in Maryland, I at once wrote to the secretary of the National Religious Liberty Association, stating that if I could be of any service whatever in defending these men, it would give me pleasure to volunteer my time and labor in the good cause. My proposition was accepted, and that is how I happen to be on the ground. You will understand, therefore, that my concern in the matter is by no means that of mere counsel, but that of a citizen who believes that there is an issue at stake in all such cases as these, irrespective altogether of their results, so far as the individuals are concerned. With this idea I have persuaded my friends to allow me to exhaust every legal resource in their favor, and have associated myself with W. L. Carter of your bar. I may add that the statement which has appeared in a number of papers to the effect that Hon. Robert G. Ingersoll and Hon. Don M. Dickinson have been retained for the defense in these cases is a mistake.”

“Of course this is not the time to detail any of the points which Mr. Carter and I propose to argue, either before the court or the jury, but I have no objection to telling you that we rest our confidence of winning our cases largely upon an expression which was used by Judge Swiggart in a previous case of similar character. The learned judge is reported to have declared that he intended to have the laws ‘strictly enforced.’ This is just what we desire, and all that we desire. We shall make no captious objections at any stage, nor will we contend for delay for its own sake. We shall proceed on the assumption that in order that a criminal law shall be ‘strictly enforced’ it is necessary at every point that the strictness shall be exercised in favor of the accused and not against him. If we can show to the satisfaction of the learned judge that there is a reasonable doubt as to any one single proposition of law growing out of these cases we shall urge upon him that the strict enforcement of the law requires him to give us the benefit of that doubt just as much as its strict enforcement will require that the jury, if we ever get to the jury, shall give us the benefit of every reasonable doubt as to the facts. I may say that we are satisfied that we shall not get to the jury, if the learned judge will favor us with that strict construction of the law for which we shall contend. The reputation of Judge Swiggart is a sufficient guaranty that his rulings will be conscientious, and our endeavor will be to see that they cover every possible point, not only in order that we have the benefit of all the law that there is for us, but also in order that we may know precisely where we stand for the future. Our strength is that many of what we believe to be our strongest points do not appear to have been seriously argued or explicitly decided in previous cases, either by the learned judge of this circuit or the courts of last resort in Tennessee. In fact, it would be hard to find a case anywhere in which the merits of the Sunday law question have been thoroughly and exhaustively elucidated.”

“I understand from what you tell me, Mr. Ringgold, that you are not, yourself, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination?”

“No, I am not. I am a communicant in the Episcopal Church, but while my denomination has special religious services on Sunday, just as it has on Christmas day, Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Ascension day, the forty days of Lent, and on many saints’ days, I am not aware of anything in its doctrine or discipline which either requires or justifies the use of the police power of the State to compel any one, either within or outside of its pale, to observe a different line of conduct on Sunday, or on any other of the days which it especially honors, from the line of conduct which he observes on any other day. This being the case, I understand that I am as free to advocate the absolute

equality of all religions and of no religion before the civil law as is a Seventh-day Adventist. This is the cause in which I am so deeply interested, and this interest is the cause of my being in Paris at present. I want to say, also, that to my interest in the principle at stake there has of late been added a daily increasing personal interest in my clients. I have been, for some time past, studying the peculiar doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventists, as well as making acquaintances among them, and I do not hesitate to say that I regard them as the most remarkable and interesting set of people in the United States to-day. I have been fairly astounded by the combination which I find in them of intense zeal and absolute toleration. They have given the lie to the philosophy of all the ages, which has always been agreed upon the proposition that toleration can only co-exist with indifference. And they have done more than this. They have elevated toleration from a mild virtue of self-control to the position of a leading and fundamental Christian duty. Incredible as it may sound, they believe in and act upon the theory that there can be no true religion without the absolute divorcement of religious and civil influences. This is a doctrine which has never before been enunciated since it was first given to the world by the Founder of Christianity—that is to say, never officially enunciated by any organization of Christians, so far, at least, as I am aware.

“There is another thing about these people which connects them remarkably with the Christians of the first era and distinguishes them as sharply as anything well could do from the average Christians of these days. This is their willingness to suffer for opinion’s sake. Perhaps this contributes even more than their orderly, clean, and upright manner of life to make them valuable citizens just now. They are history makers, just as were the first Christian martyrs. It was by bringing out the rancor and cruelty of the Roman Government that the Christians destroyed pagan intolerance. It can only be through such men as these Seventh-day Adventists that the inhumanity, bigotry and unchristianity, which inspires all Sunday laws can be forced upon the attention of the people of the United States. I believe that these men will ultimately prove the instruments by which this survival of the union of Church and State will be rooted out of every American commonwealth, and I will further say that if this should prove to be the case, they will have done more for the service of humanity and for the glory and welfare of our country, than the greatest philanthropist, statesman or soldier that ever lived. I am far from attaining to their standard of life, and I do not profess to decide controverted points of doctrine between them and other denominations, but I am proud to be associated with them in the humblest capacity in the fulfillment of this which I believe to be their mission. Men are rarer than is generally supposed, and these are men, and I am glad to be among them.”