A Remedy Worse Than the Disease
THE most casual observer of men and things must see conditions on every hand which invite reform. The inherent evil in unregenerated human nature is manifesting itself in many ways. The rich oppress the poor; the employer makes unreasonable demands upon the helpless employee; the corporations practically hold up and rob the people; and the bosses, to a very large extent, run the government, both State and national. To meet this situation there is a spirit of reform in the air, and ill-considered measures are proposed for protecting the weak against the strong. Those who desire the enactment of Sunday laws in order to protect the so-called working classes against the encroachments of employers are suggesting a remedy which is worse than the disease. This has been pointed out, in the case of the proposed Sunday law for the District of Columbia, in a letter from the editor of the REVIEW to the District Commissioners. This letter is given herewith in full:— WASHINGTON, D. C., Feb. 13, 1906. To the Honorable Commissioners of the District of Columbia. GENTLEMEN: I desire to avail myself of the opportunity offered for written protests against the proposed Sunday law for the District of Columbia, H. R. 10510, by offering for your consideration a brief reply to the arguments made at the hearing last Thursday by Messrs. Manning and Ford, who spoke in behalf of the clerks’ associations. Being a hard toiler myself, I sympathize with those workers who desire to secure at least one day of uninterrupted rest during the week; but I submit that a small portion of the workers in this District ought not to ask for a law compelling all to rest on a specified day in order to secure to them the boon of one day’s rest in seven. This is asking all to be compelled to rest on a particular day whether they desire to do so or not, in order that a few may be able to resist successfully the tendency of employers to deprive them of the rest to which every laboring man is entitled. If this bill is not intended to be a piece of religious legislation, it would meet the needs of the clerks’ associations as presented by their representatives if the law should simply forbid employers to require more than six days’ labor in the week from any of their employees. I am quite well aware that in this amended form, the proposed law would doubtless be unacceptable to the authors of the bill now under consideration, as I am well satisfied that their whole purpose is to secure legislation which will compel at least an outward regard for a religious institution, rather than to ameliorate the condition of the laboring classes. But a refusal to accept such an amendment would show plainly the religious character of the proposed legislation. Furthermore, I beg you to consider that if the proposed law should be enacted6and enforced, it would bring about a condition of things worse than the evils it is designed to remedy. All history bears testimony to the serious results which attend any effort to compel conformity to religious observances, and terrible have been the conflicts which have been precipitated by the misguided efforts to establish religion by law. It is true that we live in a time when great reforms are demanded, but it by no means follows that these desired results will be attained by legislating concerning religion. Those who believe that the troubles which threaten this nation can be averted by seeking to enforce through legal enactments a greater regard for religious observances would do well to study a well-known example of the application of this principle during the period of the decline of the Roman empire. During the early part of the fourth century, the pagan emperor, Diocletian, attempted to restore the waning fortunes of the empire by compelling a more general observance of that religion which he believed to be the only true one. The story is briefly told in the following extract:— “Towards the end of his reign Diocletian inaugurated against the Christians a persecution which continued long after his abdication, and which was the severest, as it was the last, waged against the church by the pagan emperors. “We have already mentioned some of the main causes of these constantly recurring persecutions of the Christians (par. 228). To these various grounds of dislike and hatred of the new converts on the part of the Roman rulers there was added in the case of Diocletian another of a somewhat different nature. It was the aim and ambition of this emperor, as we have seen, to restore the unity of the empire, and, in place of the prevailing anarchy, division, and discord, to establish order, union, and harmony. “To Diocletian it seemed that this end could be attained only by the restoration of the ancient cults; for like many statesmen of to-day, he was convinced that religion must form the basis of any permanent system of government. Accordingly Diocletian labored to revive in the masses faith in their ancestral gods, and to lead them to renew, in reverent spirit, the neglected sacrifices of the altar and the services of the temple.”—“Rome: Its Rise and Fall,” by Myers, pages 386 and 387. It may seem to you that the proposed bill professedly designed to secure one day’s rest in the week for the laboring men of the District of Columbia is very far removed from persecution for conscience’ sake; but every piece of religious legislation contains all the elements of persecution, as history has abundantly proved. The only sure way of avoiding persecution for conscience’ sake is to studiously avoid the enactment of any religious legislation. Thanking you for any consideration which you may give to the objections which I have made to the proposed bill, I am, gentlemen, Yours very truly,
W. W. PRESCOTT. The commissioners have deferred their report on this bill in order to give the fullest opportunity for an expression of public opinion concerning it. Many protests have been made against it by citizens of Washington.