Sunday Enforcement in Oklahoma
By I. A. Crane
FOUR members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church at Hitchcock, Okla., have been indicted for violating the State Sunday law. G. J. Krieger and I. G. Krieger are proprietors of a department store and elevator. Otto Weitz and his brother run a general repair shop and garage. The Messrs. Krieger have two indictments against them up to date, while the others have one. All are threatened with separate indictments for each succeeding offense. There are five Seventh-day Adventist churches near Hitchcock, and these brethren who have been indicted have been successful business men in that city for a number of years. There have been many efforts made heretofore to have them indicted, but former county attorneys have always refused to act. The outlook at present seems to indicate that this trial, which is set for July 6, will be the most complicated and far-reaching of any action yet begun against our people. As is well known to many readers, Sunday enforcement has been much agitated for more than two years in Oklahoma. Numerous laws and amendments have been proposed, and some change has been made in the law. A number of towns and cities have been stirred by those who delight to honor the “venerable day of the sun.” On all these occasions our vigorous protests were met with the pleasing assurance that we need have no fear; no one dreamed of harming Seventh-day Adventists. A law was only desired which would reach a lawless class; and however strict the law might be, it never would be invoked against the people who differed as to the day to be observed. Besides, we were abundantly protected by the statute exempting us. How true these assurances were may well be judged by the present prosecutions and the determination to secure conviction. We have always contended that a law exempting seventh-day observers does not protect them from being indicted at any time and brought before the court, where they may be required to prove that they “habitually” and “conscientiously” keep another day, and that the work performed was not done in a way to disturb those who keep that day. We gather from the present indications that much thought has been given by leading men of the State, and especially in the county where the indictments have been made, to the law exempting us. If it is not decided that it has been set aside, a new turn is proposed. The exemption has heretofore been understood to cover all phases of the law. Now it is discovered to permit only “servile labor.” If a decision can be secured narrowing down the exemption to “servile labor,” it may be plainly seen that Seventh-day Adventists will no longer be permitted to work at any trade, business, or employment not comprehended in what is called “servile labor,” a term which would itself need to be defined. We visited the brethren who were indicted, also a number of men in the county seat. Among the latter was the legal advisor for the Krieger firm, also the editor of the county paper, and the county attorney. The editor showed himself very friendly, and took a statement of our position for publication. He seemed entirely in sympathy with us. The county attorney at first seemed a little hard to approach, but this soon wore away, and we had a very friendly, frank discussion of the points at issue. We told him this was not a matter concerning only those who were indicted, but that principles were involved that were sacred indeed to every Seventh-day Adventist. Were he to be convinced that it was his sacred duty to keep the Sabbath, he could well see that it involved a great sacrifice to do so. Ought the law to make conscientious convictions of duty still harder to be performed? Being a decided believer in immersion, he admitted he should not submit to a law compelling him to be sprinkled also. This helped him to see why we resent a law compelling us to keep Sunday after we have obeyed God in keeping the Bible Sabbath. This gentleman was found to be decidedly anti-Catholic, and there was evidently quite an impression made when he was told that Sunday enforcement was not enforcing a command of the Bible, but a doctrine of the Catholic Church. We left him with a very different view of the question, and with much more friendly feeling toward those whom he had under pressure decided to prosecute. He yet seemed to think that it would be best to let the cases be continued, and thus have handed down a decision which he hoped would forever settle this troublesome question. He seemed to think that if these men were acquitted, it would then be settled, but we assured him that such matters never can be settled by law. With a decision acquitting our brethren, there would come a clamor for a new law or a new decision that would be against our people, and it would come from the same source from which these indictments were urged. I. A. CRANE,
Secretary Religious Liberty Association.