p. 6 | Sunday in the District by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Nov 19, 1914

Sunday in the District

By C. M. S.

A NEW and striking development in the Sunday law situation in the District of Columbia has been brought about by a decision handed down by Justice Robb of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on November 5. Last summer certain baseball clubs desiring to play ball on Sunday were forbidden by the District Commissioners. The baseball managers secured an injunction preventing the Commissioners from interfering with their Sunday games. The Commissioners carried the case to the District Supreme Court and it was decided against them. The case was then taken to the District Court of Appeals, where Justice Robb of that court reversed the decision of the District Supreme Court and upheld the Commissioners.

Justice Robb in his decision states that Congress has declared Sunday to be a day of rest; that in several enactments it has forbidden the doing of certain things on Sunday, such as the act of June 15, 1878, forbidding shooting or carrying guns on Sunday; imposing a fine (act of July 28, 1892) for disturbing a religious congregation; forbidding the sale (act of March 3, 1899) of liquor on Sunday. Despite the fact that in this country church and state are supposed to be separate, and are zealously declared so to be, this decision by a state official is based purely upon religious grounds. It reads, in part, as follows:—

It thus appears that Congress has recognized what all other legislative bodies have recognized; namely, that Sunday is a day of rest. While in the instances noted it has said to the people of the District that they shall refrain from doing certain things on that day, it has delegated to the Commissioners of the District general power upon the subject, realizing that the Commissioners, being in closer touch with local conditions, would be in a better position to judge as to what police regulations would be necessary for the protection of the health, comfort, and quiet of the people of the District. . . .

The object and scope of the regulation under review was to insure to the people of the District their day of rest, that their moral and physical well-being might be advanced. Having in mind the end desired, can it be seriously contended that the classification in the regulation is so palpably arbitrary as to amount to an unreasonable discrimination against those within the classes? Each of the prohibited things is purely secular in character and out of harmony with the atmosphere of Sunday. In short, each would constitute a false note and jar upon the sensibilities of those seeking the rest and quiet to which they are entitled. Nor do we think the exceptions are so palpably unreasonable as to warrant judicial interference. . . .

One of these games played within the limits of the city would cause as much or more interference with the quiet observance of Sunday than any other amusement embraced within the regulation. This the Commissioners well know. There is, therefore, every reason for giving the regulation the reasonable interpretation which its language permits. . . .

But, irrespective of any mandate of the law, the Christian world, of which this country is a part, has by common consent set apart the first day of the week as a day of rest, reflection, and devotion. In our own land State legislatures have taken cognizance of the traditions and customs of the people in thus setting apart Sunday, by enacting laws relating to the observance of that day, the theory of such laws being that they tend to promote the order and advance the moral and physical well-being of those affected. Viewed in their civil aspect, these laws have been sustained with uniformity as a valid exercise of the police power.

It is impossible not to see the religious animus in this decision. It will be noted that the day on which this form of activity is forbidden is “the day of rest;” that “each of the prohibited things is purely secular in character and out of harmony with the atmosphere of Sunday;” that the games would interfere with “the quiet observance of Sunday;” that “the Christian world, of which this country

is a part, has by common consent set apart the first day of the week as a day of rest, reflection, and devotion.”

We submit that religious custom or practice is no just ground for civil legislation; that wherever civil legislation is based upon religious grounds, there is in it the element of oppression because of religious conviction, and religious intolerance grows out of it as surely as the sprout grows out of the moistened acorn. It is impossible that it should not be so; for it is the religious conviction of the majority that is enforced, and the religious convictions of the minority that are put under the ban. Neither can it be truly said that such a law would not coerce; for a law that does not coerce is not a law. All human law is coercion, but coercion is not wrong in those affairs which affect the conduct of men toward one another. It is done that might may not triumph over right in civil things — that the weak may not be trampled upon by the strong.

When it comes to the passing of religious laws, however, there is a very material difference. Then the convictions of the strong, the majority, are made obligatory upon the weak, the minority. The pyramid of justice is then inverted, and instead of the weak getting protection from the law, they are oppressed by it, and their religious enemies are strengthened in their persecuting purpose. Whatever the immediate purpose of lawmaker and judge may be, base a law or a judicial decision upon religion, and, like a malignant cancer, its tentacles will reach out in every possible direction.

A careful reading of the whole decision will make plain that there is in it much more than a guaranty of the Commissioners' authority to stop games on Sunday. It virtually places in their hands the entire matter of Sunday observance in the District of Columbia. If that decision stands,—and there is only the Supreme Court of the United States that can reverse it,—everything that Sunday law advocates have been striving to accomplish for the District for years has been done, provided the Commissioners themselves favor Sunday laws; and the attitude of the present Commissioners in carrying the case up to the appellate court indicates that they do. It is one of the most far-reaching decisions ever handed down by a court in this country, and places liberty of conscience in the District of Columbia in the greatest jeopardy.

C. M. S.