Untitled article | AdventAI

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York City · June 11, 1896

THE CALIFORNIA SUNDAY LAW.

The following is a letter from the clerk of one of the standing committees of the 31st Session of the California Legislature:—

St. Helena, Cal., May 22, 1896.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE AMERICAN SENTINEL, New York City, N. Y.

Dear Sir: In your issue of May 14, page 156, speaking of the decision of the California Supreme Court declaring the “Barbers' Law” unconstitutional, you say:—

“The real protection aimed at was protection for a religious institution.”

Whatever may have been the result, allow me to say that this conclusion of a fact is erroneous. The “Barbers' Law” was devised and advocated by the Barbers' Union, and its expressed intention, or rather, the expressed intention of its advocates and sponsors, was to “protect” the business of barbers who desired to close up their shops one day in the week and not lose the trade that would thereby go to the shops of men who did not close up.

From actual contact with the proponents of the “Barbers' Law,” I can say that there was no thought of religion in their scheme, although they did use the religious argument where they thought it would be of service.

There was a general belief at the time the law was passed that the governor only signed it for the political favor of the Barbers' Union, knowing it was unconstitutional.

California is not irreligious, but there is no State in the Union where religious laws are looked upon with less favor.

Very respectfully, FRANK H. OWEN.

We are glad that Mr. Owen has written so fully and freely. Doubtless the object that the barbers had in view when they asked for the passage of the act in question, was just what he says it was. Being right on the ground he certainly had a better opportunity to know the facts than we would have at this distance.

Nevertheless the motive of the barbers does not greatly alter the case. The fact is that Sunday laws, whatever may be the motive back of them, tend to the exaltation of Sunday as a religious institution; and were it not for the fact that Sunday is a religious institution, and is so regarded by a very large number of people, such legislation would not be sought; and if it were sought, could not be secured.

We find no laws forbidding labor upon our national or State holidays. All legislation on that subject seeks to make it possible for as many as desire a holiday to have it; but nobody is compelled to observe a holiday except as the circumstances may be such as to render it out of the question for them to do business because others are not doing business. But no penalty is provided for a man who works on New Year's Day, Washington's Birthday, Decoration Day, Fourth of July, or Christmas. It is true that in some countries abstinence from labor is made compulsory on other days than Sunday, but it is always because of the religious character of such days. Such laws are never put upon a civil basis at all—they are confessedly religious in purpose.

People make a great mistake when they ask for such legislation in order that they may be freed from competition. “The sphere which the State invades it dominates; the jurisdiction which it takes it keeps.” If the State may forbid labor by a certain class, it may forbid it by all; and if it may forbid Sunday labor, and it certainly can do it only on religious grounds, it may also forbid pleasure upon that day. To this latter the barbers would doubtless object, as many of them are among the number who desire to make Sunday simply a holiday. But when they have asked the legislature to prohibit labor upon that day, they cannot with any consistency protest against an act prohibiting pleasure-seeking also; so that even granting that the barbers could be benefited by an act forbidding them to carry on business on Sunday, it must be admitted that they lose more in the end than they gain by consenting to the violation of the principle of non-interference with the reserved rights of the people.

That government is best which governs least and yet preserves the natural, inalienable rights of the people. Men should be self-reliant and self-governing, and should be permitted to use their time as they see fit; provided in so doing they do not trench upon the equal rights of others.

California should be devoutly thankful that the Supreme Court has declared the mischievous barber law unconstitutional; and the barbers themselves should rejoice that this mischievous legislation has not been fastened permanently upon the State.