Hearing on the District Sunday Bill
By L. A. S.
A HEARING on this bill, which was brought before the present Congress by Representative Allen, of Maine, and was referred to the commissioners of the District of Columbia, was granted by the commissioners February 8. The nature of this bill has been already set before the readers of the REVIEW. The hearing took the form of alternate speeches of five minutes each, for and against the measure. The Rev. R. H. McKim, who led in the recent effort to introduce religious teaching in the public schools of the District of Columbia, was the first speaker in favor of the bill. He said the bill originated in the Churchmen’s League, an Episcopal organization of the District, and that the bill expressed the mind of the Episcopal church. He said it did not interfere with any man’s conscience, and aimed to protect the laborer, and to protect the public against making Sunday a day of traffic. He referred to the Sunday laws of the States, and said the District of Columbia ought not to be an exception in the matter of Sunday legislation. It is three hundred years too late, he went on, to object to Sunday laws, for “we took over the observance of Sunday with the rest of our Christian morality when we settled this country three hundred years ago.” He cited the Supreme Court decision that “this is a ‘Christian nation.’” Sunday laws were, he declared, on the same plane with laws against polygamy. He spoke of Sunday as the “Lord’s day.” Dr. McKim’s time having expired, the opponents of the bill were called for, and immediately a man jumped to his feet, claiming to represent the Master Butchers’ Association, and saying that he opposed the bill because of its exemption clause for observers of the seventh day. That is, he was so strongly in favor of Sunday legislation that he opposed any exemption for any one. The presiding commissioner, Mr. McFarland, reminded the speaker that his speech was not in order as not being in opposition to the substance of the bill, but the latter persisted, and was allowed to occupy five minutes in an argument for a more rigid Sunday bill than the one under consideration. These two speeches very plainly revealed the religious animus that was back of the proposed legislation. The opponents of the bill were then allowed ten minutes. The first opposing speaker was Gen. William Birney, a long-known resident of Washington, who set forth that the bill was not properly constructed. Mr. Birney proceeded to declare that the bill was aimed at the Seventh-day Adventists, and referred to the prosecutions suffered by seventh-day observers under Sunday laws, their punishment in the chain-gang, etc. Following General Birney, Elder K. C. Russell spoke against the bill as being religious legislation. The bill, he said, mentions the driving of dirt carts and other work on Sunday, but the offense alleged from such work is not felt by people on Monday or any other day of the week except the first; hence it is plain that the feeling created is not on account of the nature of the work, but of the nature of the day when it is done. He stated that he had never known a seventh-day observer to be offended or disturbed by traffic on the seventh day. He was not opposed to Sabbath observance, but to Sabbath legislation. Sunday legislation means enforced idleness, which breeds dissipation and crime. Elder Russell quoted statements from Mr. Evarts and Dr. Barnes, both advocates of Sunday, declaring that Sunday as a mere rest day, apart from religion and worship, was of no benefit, and would better be a day of labor. The Rev. Mr. Nicholson, of the Methodist Preachers’ League of the District, spoke next in favor of the bill. His speech was in substance a repetition of previous arguments, claiming that the bill was not a religious measure, and that any possible religious scruples were provided for by the exemption. Elder W. W. Prescott followed. He called attention to the fact that while most of the States have Sunday laws, the national government has not yet committed itself to Sunday legislation, which it is asked to do by this bill. In the national government church and state have been kept separate, and the example of the United States in this respect has affected the whole world. In Russia, the czar has recently issued a rescript granting religious freedom. France has abolished the concordat, which had bound the nation to the Catholic Church since 1801. In England, there is a reaction against the despotism of the education act. Should the United States now turn into the pathway of religious legislation, its flag of freedom would be lowered, and the whole world would be turned back from the path of liberty. This government ought not to set such an example before the nations. Next followed the Rev. Dr. Butler, Lutheran minister, who said, “We stand for the fourth commandment.” He did not, however, quote the commandment. Dr. Butler repeated the argument about protecting labor and the wrong of imposing too much labor on the people, and said Sunday laws were sustained by “overwhelming sentiment” on the part of the public. Mrs. Margaret Dye Ellis, representing the W. C. T. U., followed. She spoke of Sunday observance as a legacy received from the forefathers of the present generation, and argued for the bill on the ground that such a law in the District of Columbia would be a guide to the people of the nation. Rev. A. H. Lewis, Seventh-day Baptist, spoke of the Sunday mail reports of 1829-30, in which Congress had fully considered and settled the question of the right of Congress to legislate for Sunday observance. The bill, he said further, creates a crime out of that which is not criminal in itself nor a crime on six days out of the week. He spoke of it as a religious measure. The trouble is, he declared, that for the past half century Sunday observance has been on the decline because the support of religious conviction was failing it, and now the clergy were trying to bolster up by law this institution which has lost its support in the consciences of the people. The Rev. Mr. Price, M. E. clergyman, spoke in support of the bill as being merely municipal legislation and a measure demanded by the poor laboring men. After him, Rabbi Simon opposed the bill as a measure not needed by the working men, calling attention to the fact that the laboring men are strongly organized and quite able to take care of themselves. The inheritance from our forefathers, he said, was the Puritanic Sunday, which popular sentiment was now against. The solicitude for the poor laboring men, he said, did not harmonize with the purpose of this bill to prohibit the children from playing games and obtaining recreation on Sunday. The bill exempts railroads; why is this? he asked. Why also allow the sale of tobacco and prohibit the sale of dry goods? Rabbi Simon spoke as one who sensed the hypocrisy of this “Christian” measure and of the “Christian” arguments in its support. Mr. Manning, representing the Retail Clerks’ Association, favored the bill, although it was not, he said, such a measure as they wanted. He made an argument on the bad effects of continuous labor without a day of rest. He said relief had been sought by legislation and by private agreement for Sunday rest, but very little assistance had been received from the public in the effort for legislation, thus contradicting the idea that public sentiment was overwhelmingly for such legislation. If the merchants, he said, would get together and settle the question by agreement in a reasonable way, there would be little need for the proposed bill. Commissioner West questioned the speaker regarding the size of the organization for which he spoke, and the progress made toward a settlement of the Sunday rest question by agreement between the union and employers; in reply to which Mr. Manning stated that the membership of19his association embraced about three hundred clerks, and that few of these now work on Sunday, but prior to organizing nearly all of them did Sunday work. The whole number of clerks in the District, Mr. Manning stated, was about four thousand. The commissioner inquired if the end of possible progress toward elimination of Sunday work through organization had now been reached, so that legislation was now desired, and was answered by Mr. Manning in the affirmative. The commissioner regretted that no laboring men’s association was represented at the hearing. Elder W. A. Colcord said it was evident from the discord over this measure that it would be against one essential purpose of government as provided in the Constitution, which was to promote “domestic tranquillity.” Elder Colcord spoke against the bill on the ground of its character as a religious measure. Mr. C. A. Ford, representing a clerks’ association, favored the bill, and alleged that where grocer’s clerks refuse to work on Sunday they can not hold their position. If grocery clerks were Seventh-day Adventists, he said, they could not serve God, because they were compelled to work on the Sabbath. The hearing occupied about an hour’s time, and the presiding commissioner announced that further consideration would be given to arguments on the bill addressed to the commissioners by letter, before the report of the commissioners was made to Congress. L. A. S.