p. 9 | A Dangerous Precedent by John S. Wightman

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · Aug 31, 1905

A Dangerous Precedent

By John S. Wightman

A Court Decision Which Shows That Exemptions Do Not Exempt

JOHN S. WIGHTMAN

POLICE JUSTICE CHADSEY, in Rochester, N. Y., August 9, rendered a decision in the case of the people versus Isador Tasker, a Hebrew charged with Sabbath-breaking by keeping open store on Sunday, to the effect that “because a Hebrew or person of any other than the Christian religion observes some other day than Sunday as his holy day, it does not legally entitle him to keep his store open on the sabbath.”

Attorney Whitley for the defense, admitted the act charged, and made a motion for the discharge of the defendant on the ground that the accused, having observed Saturday, was legally entitled to keep open on Sunday. Special attention was called to the Act of Assembly and the exemption clause provided for those who observe a day other than Sunday.

Though the law is very plain, granting to those who rest on Saturday the right to labor on Sunday, the police justice denied the motion, and in a sweeping decision affirmed the right of the legislature to define what constituted Sabbath-keeping as well as Sabbath-breaking, and that keeping open store was clearly an offense against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth, a disturbance, and this brought the defendant within the meaning of the statute, which aimed to secure peace and quietness upon the Christian sabbath.

When the judge was questioned as to whether Sunday railway excursions in and out of Rochester were not as much and more of a disturbance than the offense charged, he replied: “That is a matter of law. The railroad has been given permission by the legislature to run such excursions.” He continued: “In order that the Christian sabbath should be preserved, the law specifies how far that day should be kept, and how it should be different from other days.”

Here is an exhibition of one of the strange anomalies of sabbath-keeping as regulated by legislation and jurists: railroads are engaged in trade the same as the shopkeeper, yet railways are exempt from obedience to the law, and may disturb the peace and quietness of the Sunday sabbath with impunity, while peaceful citizens may not so much as tie up a parcel of crackers or weigh out a pound of sugar, even though legislative exemption has been made for them, lest they be considered law-breakers and disturbers of the general peace.

Judge Chadsey’s decision indicates the real nature of Sunday laws and human sabbath legislation. It proves that exemptions do not necessarily exempt, and shows that Sunday legislation is religious legislation.

The defendant was convicted and fined. An appeal was taken.

It may be interesting to note in this connection that already the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in an opinion delivered by Justice Davy, Oct. 3, 1904, has decided that “the Christian sabbath is one of the civil institutions of the land; and that the legislature has authority to regulate its observance and prevent its desecration by any appropriate legislation is unquestioned. Orderly and decent respect should be paid to the religious institutions of the people.” “Those who hold Saturday and do not disturb others in the observance of the first day as holy time are exempt from the general provisions of the statute.”

From the tenor of this decision of the higher court it is plain that an appeal will prove fruitless. And just as certainly as the Supreme Court has made the sweeping decision that “orderly and decent respect must be paid to the religious institutions of the people,” chief of which is the “Christian sabbath,” just so surely will that court be forced by the circumstances to render a decision as to what constitutes a disturbance. Judge Chadsey has plainly indicated what, in his estimation, constitutes a disturbance.

This case is one of great importance, and is so regarded by the attorneys involved in its trial, because a precedent is thereby established. Clearly, those who religiously and conscientiously observe a day other than Sunday, will soon find

that the exemption clause of the Sunday enactment of the legislature allowing them to labor on the first day of the week, will not avail. Nor can their rights any longer be safeguarded by the laws of the legislature; for judges, we may infer from these proceedings, will interpret the meaning of these laws with little regard to the expressed and implied intention of the framers of them. Decisions are being made, and precedents are being established, that are fast making for the point where the views and rights of the minority in religious matters will no longer be respected. The courts pass upon the meaning of laws, and in this subtle way rights are being denied.

The sum of the whole matter, rightly understood, may be stated as follows: You may keep Saturday if you wish, but you must observe Sunday also; for it is one of the civil institutions of the land.

Nothing more was ever asked in the darkest of the Dark Ages than that legislatures and courts might see to it that 'orderly and decent respect should be paid to the religious institutions of the people.'

Because of decisions like this, came the Spanish Inquisition, the rack, and the thumb-screw, the torch, the bitter persecutions of the past. Such decisions gave birth to a condition of mind and society that produced such fearful scenes in the drama of the ages as the hanging of the Protestants in the Netherlands, the banishment of Roger Williams, the burning of Huss and Jerome, and the whipping of the Anabaptists, not to speak of the hundred and more persecutions called 'prosecutions' in the United States during the past few decades to secure a more orderly and decent and respectful obedience to the religious institution called Sunday.

When we see this setting aside of constitutional rights and privileges, and the inroads that unreasoning bigotry and religious intolerance are making upon the very bulwarks of the republic and the state, is it not high time for effectual religious liberty work to be done throughout the country? Will not those who prize human liberty, and who stand for the heaven-born principle of the right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience, be aroused to a realizing sense of the real danger that is imminent, and labor ardently to stem the threatening tide of religious persecution? May the God of Israel grant that those who stand for the right 'like the faithful three,' may accomplish much 'in his name.'

South Livonia, N. Y.