Another District of Columbia Sunday Bill
By W. A. COLCORD
THE following is a copy of another Sunday bill H. R. 10510, for the District of Columbia, which was introduced in the House of Representatives, Jan. 5, 1906, by Mr. Allen, of Maine:— “A BILL to further protect the first day of the week as a day of rest in the District of Columbia. “Whereas, There has recently been an increase not only of traffic, but also of hard labor on Sunday in the national capital, including the public filling and driving of dirt carts, to the great offense of Christian and humane citizens; and,— “Whereas, The President has been appealed to by philanthropic societies of the city to suppress this Sunday toil ordered by contractors for government work and others, and has regretfully said that there is no law that would enable him to do so; and,— “Whereas, The following bill has been twice approved in previous Congresses by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia; therefore,— “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall not be lawful for any person to keep open any place of business or maintain a stand for the sale of any article or articles of profit during Sunday, excepting venders of books and newspapers, and apothecaries for the dispensing of medicines, and undertakers for the purpose of providing for the dead, or others for the purpose of charity or necessity; nor shall any public playing of football or baseball or any other kind of playing, sports, pastimes, or diversions disturbing the peace and quiet of the day, be practised by any person or persons within the District of Columbia on Sunday; nor shall any building operations or work upon railroad construction be lawful upon said day; and for any violation of this Act the person offending shall for each offense be liable to a fine of not less than five dollars nor more than fifty dollars, and in the case of corporations there shall be a like fine for every person employed in violation of this Act laid upon the corporation offending. “Sec. 2.—That it shall be a sufficient defense to a prosecution for labor on the first day of the week that the defendant uniformly keeps another day of the week as a day of rest, and that the labor complained of was done in such a manner as not to interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of the week as a day of rest. This Act shall not be construed to prevent the sale of refreshments other than malt or spirituous liquors, or to prevent the sale of malt and spirituous liquors as now provided by the law, or tobacco, cigars, railroad and steamboat tickets, or the collection and delivery of baggage.” Mr. Allen not only introduced this bill, but also the one (H. R. 4859) that died in the “House” during the fifty-eighth Congress. This, however, is exactly the same as the former bill, with the exception that this one has a preamble,—a remarkable and unusual thing in legislation,—which, in a very adroit manner, not only gives the impression that President Roosevelt is in favor of the bill, but states that he has “regretfully said” there was no law that would enable him to suppress Sunday toil. The framer of this preamble, whoever he may be, if he correctly represents matters, not only indicates the President’s general attitude toward the question of Sunday work in the District of Columbia, but, in a way, forecasts what would doubtless be the result should such a bill come before the President for his approval. This is only another effort, in a long line of attempts, to get the government of the United States committed to religious legislation. From almost the earliest history of this nation, contrary to one of its fundamental principles, misguided men have sought to fasten religious20legislation onto the national government, and thus unite church and state in the United States. The chief means by which they have sought to do this has been through Sunday legislation. As early as 1829 and 1830, petitions and memorials were sent to Congress praying for legislation prohibiting the carrying and handling of mails on Sunday. In 1888 Senator Blair introduced a bill for a very stringent national Sunday law, openly based on grounds directly religious. This applied to the whole nation, and provided a fine of one thousand dollars for its violation. It was rejected in committee largely because of its religious character. Since that time certain religious organizations have been urging Congress to pass a District Sunday law, it being evident that the people were not yet ready for a national Sunday law. In response to this demand, various District Sunday bills, such as the Breckenridge Sunday bill, introduced in 1890, have been placed before Congress from time to time. The idea has been that if a precedent could be established, if Congress could be led to commit itself to the principle of religious legislation through a law requiring Sunday observance in the District of Columbia, it would be comparatively easy to secure a national Sunday law. A District Sunday law is desired as an entering wedge for a national Sunday law. But all these proposed measures have failed because of their religious character. All have been met on the ground that in this government church and state are separate, the First Amendment to the Constitution declaring that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The religious character of this bill is very marked. Its declared object is to “protect the first day of the week as a day of rest,” or sabbath. According to the express terms of the preamble, the bill is designed to protect the day, not the people; to protect a religious institution, not the rights of citizens. It is the “peace and quiet of the day,” not the peace and prosperity of the people, with which the bill is concerned. This bill exempts those who keep another day as a day of rest. But if it is right to exempt one class who do not believe in keeping Sunday, why would it not be right to exempt all classes who do not respect the day? This, of course, would nullify the law. It is evident, therefore, that the passage of this measure would be needless and unjust legislation. Now all are free; hence this legislation is unnecessary. And if it should bring suffering or religious oppression to a single individual, even though demanded by every other person in the District, it would be unjust. Shall the people of the District of Columbia be allowed to remain free, or must they be compelled to accept this yoke? No citizen of the District of Columbia has any vote or voice in making the laws by which the District is governed. This, then, is a field most favorable for the beginning of a religious despotism. And right here the National Reform Association, the American Sabbath Union, and the International Reform Bureau have been working for years, seeking to persuade Congress to commit itself in some way to the principle of religious legislation. After some such local and apparently insignificant bill as this is passed, a multitude of others increasingly oppressive, not only for the District, but for the whole nation, will inevitably follow. A mighty impetus would also be given to state Sunday legislation as a result of the example set by the national government, and the way opened for religious despotism to establish itself in this country. This bill applies only to the District of Columbia, and to certain classes only. The first Sunday law, that promulgated by Constantine March 7, 321 A. D., applied only to cities, and was for certain classes only. But after the union of church and state thus formed, religious tests and religious persecution followed. Liberty was in chains. Then came the world’s midnight,—the Dark Ages,—a time of physical, intellectual, and spiritual bondage, and finally the Inquisition. Do the people of the United States wish to see this history repeated?