Letters From Congressmen
By K. C. Russell
SHOULD any reader of the REVIEW be tempted to delay the work of sounding the warning, we believe the following letters which have recently been received from congressmen will awaken all to earnest efforts to do their part in enlightening the people on the principles of religious liberty:— “DEAR SIR: Your letter of February 9 is at hand, in regard to the bills (H. R. 10510 and H. R. 3022). The latter bill I have read, and unless I learn of some serious objection to it, other than that mentioned by you, I shall vote for it if it comes before the House. I will vote for it, not because it is what you are pleased to call ‘religious legislation,’ but because I regard it as the wise kind of economic and social legislation. The day that is easiest to get most people to agree upon as a day of rest is Sunday. “Regretting that I can not agree with your position, I beg to remain “DEAR SIR: Yours of the 12th inst. received. I shall, of course, examine carefully these bills when they come up. But I do not agree with you that they have the slightest tendency to unite church and state. I long since determined in my own mind that it was better for human beings to have one day of rest in the week, and that this day of rest is as necessary and proper as the rest secured by an eight-hour law. I should favor any legislation which tended to give one day free of labor out of all the seven. That this day is that day on which a large and increasing number of our people are accustomed to attend church would be a point in favor rather than in opposition to selecting that day, in my judgment.” “DEAR SIR: I have your letter of February 13. I can not regard the establishment by Congress of a day of rest and forbidding labor thereon as any more a union of church and state than the passage of an eight-hour law, and with all possible respect for the devout people of your household of faith, and without passing upon the merits of either of the bills referred to, feel impelled to vote for all reasonable legislation for the protection of one day in the week as a day of rest. Cordially yours.” Here are other letters which are more encouraging:— “DEAR SIR: I have your letter of February 16, relative to H. R. 3022 and H. R. 10510. What you have told me of these bills has interested me very much, and I will take the first opportunity to procure copies and examine them carefully. When I have familiarized myself with their contents, I shall be able to vote intelligently. “I will file the petition as you request. Very truly yours.” “MY DEAR SIR: I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 8th inst., and replying to the same beg leave to say that I join in your personal protest against the passage of H. R. No. 10510, and can assure you that you have my co-operation and assurance that I will use my influence and power against the enactment of religious legislation of any kind during the period that I am a member of Congress. Yours truly.” “DEAR SIR: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your esteemed favor of the 14th inst., and in reply will say that I have read the same with much interest. Mr. Crafts has views on several subjects that have never met my approval: First, that God should be in the Constitution, my belief being that God should be in the heart and life; second, the Sunday blue-law. This I have opposed most zealously in my own commonwealth, and should do the same here. Relative to the bill [H. R. 3022] . . . which I presume was written by Mr. Crafts, relieving from toil those who would have their day of rest, I am confident that any attempt to compel by law the observance of a particular day in the week will never become an effective statute of the United States. “The Seventh-day Baptist, the Adventist, the Jew, the man with some other religion or none, must be answerable to his Creator, not to man. My impression is that the measure [H. R. 3022] . . . would not in any way jeopardize the interests lying near your heart. If I thought it involved the possibility of the curtailment of the freedom of the individual conscience, I should oppose it by all means in my power.” It is plain that there is need of earnest work in presenting sound principles to men in high positions.