p. 4 | Two New Sunday Bills

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · Mar 22, 1906

Two New Sunday Bills

Two additional Sunday bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives. Thus the number of Sunday bills brought before Congress during the present session has been increased to five, four in the House and one in the senate.

One of these last bills, for which Mr. Heflin, of Alabama, is responsible, reads as follows:—

A BILL

Prohibiting labor on buildings, and so forth, in the District of Columbia on the Sabbath day.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no labor in constructing buildings, or railroads, or work on streets, or hauling material, and so forth, shall be permitted in the District of Columbia on the Sabbath day.

SEC. 2.—That any person who permits such labor to be performed on his property, or who shall perform in any way such labor as is described in Section 1 of this Act, shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than five hundred dollars. That all laws and clauses of laws in conflict with this Act are hereby repealed.

In the Washington Post of March 13 the author of this bill is reported as giving the following reasons for proposing such a law:—

Why, you walk around this city on Sunday and it is no uncommon thing to see men working on buildings as though this were a heathen land, or there was no such thing as the Sabbath.

I do not so much blame the laborer as I do the fellow who is hurrying the completion of a building—or the finishing of some other work.

Here in the capital of the nation, with the legislative body in session, it is simply outrageous that this thing is allowed. As I came from church Sunday, just east of the Hancock Monument stood an old man with Bible and hymn-book getting ready to hold services on the street. Passing up Pennsylvania Avenue were a long line of working men on wagons that were loaded with brick and other materials for the construction of buildings; and I made up my mind to bring this thing of licensed disregard for the Sabbath to the attention of the House, and I have introduced a bill covering this subject.

In the Post of March 14 Representative Heflin is again reported as making the following statement:—

I have just been visited by a committee from the District, in regard to my bill preventing labor on Sunday. This committee asks me to reconsider

my measure, seeing first if the difficulty could not be obviated by making it a matter of personal choice. They said: “Let each man work on Sunday if he chooses, but if he does not choose to do so, let him be protected from those who would force him to it.”

This all sounded very plausible, but one of the chief evils of working on the Sabbath is the bad example, and this is the same whether the laborers are forced or not.

Then they wanted me to introduce a bill which would provide that all labor contractors should give their men one day in the week for rest, letting each man select his own day. This I positively refused to do, both because it is impractical from the point of view of the contractor, since it would of necessity cause great irregularity in the working force, and because I firmly believe in the Scriptural doctrine, “Six days thou shalt labor and on the seventh rest,”

The Sabbath day has been authorized and sanctioned by the customs and religion of our fathers, and it has a vitiating influence on the national life to disregard it. My bill has met with much favor among the members of the House, and I anticipate very little opposition to it when it comes up to be voted on.

I don't propose to be browbeaten out of my present position by any committees, because I have introduced this bill not for the furtherance of political ends or because of any sociological predilections, but as a matter of individual conscience, and I intend to see it through. It comes before the committee in about ten days.

Both the bill and the reasons given for introducing it are certainly worthy of consideration. The bill is defined in the title as being one ‘prohibiting labor on buildings, and so forth, . . . on the Sabbath day,’ and provides that ‘no labor in constructing buildings, . . . and so forth, shall be permitted in the District of Columbia on the Sabbath day.’

In the first place it is plain that any kind of labor whatsoever, the proverbial works of charity and necessity not excepted, would become a crime on the day designated as ‘the Sabbath day,’ if this bill should become a law. Some specific kinds of labor are mentioned, and the others are easily covered by the all-inclusive phrase, ‘and so forth.’ This is as blue as the famous blue-laws of Connecticut. The most extreme bigot could not ask for a better opportunity to harass those who do not keep ‘the Sabbath day’ according to his ideas than would be afforded him by such a statute as this.

Furthermore, it is equally plain that this bill proposes religious legislation pure and simple. No labor is to be permitted ‘on the Sabbath day.’ And in explanation of the demand for such legislation, Representative Heflin says: ‘Why, you walk round this city on Sunday and it is no uncommon thing to see men working on buildings as though this were a heathen land, or there was no such thing as the Sabbath.’ The purpose of this bill, then, is to remove a possible ground for thinking that this is ‘a heathen land’ by compelling all persons to refrain from working on Sunday. In view of the pagan origin of Sunday, ‘the wild solar holiday of all pagan times,’ we seem to be involved in a strange medley of contradictions. Mr. Heflin would compel us to avoid the appearance of being like the heathen by scrupulously observing a heathen festival! Such is the inconsistency into which those are led who attempt legislation in behalf of what they term ‘the Sabbath day.’

And, thirdly, if this bill should become a law, it would at once become necessary for the courts to render a decision in the present religious controversy by determining which day is ‘the Sabbath day.’ Of course Mr. Heflin has no other idea than that the first day of the week is the Sabbath, but there is a large and rapidly increasing number of people who have discovered that there is no authority in the Bible for such a view, and who accept the plain statement of the Scripture that ‘the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.’ These same people have learned from reliable historians that from ancient times the Sunday has been the heathen rival of the true Sabbath, and they desire to avoid the appearance of being like the heathen in their observance of the weekly day of rest. Now shall Congress and the courts attempt to compel these people to adopt the badge of heathenism?

The advocates of another Sunday bill now before Congress make their strongest plea for the protection of the working men, who, they affirm, are compelled to work on Sunday, but Mr. Heflin takes an entirely different view of the question. He declares that ‘one of the chief evils of working on the Sabbath is the bad example,’ and he would therefore compel all to cease from labor on that day. In other words, Mr. Heflin would compel people to observe ‘the Sabbath day,’ and thus avoid setting a bad example.

It was the adoption of this very principle which led to all the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition. And the logical result of any and every attempt to compel people to conform to the religious ideas of the majority will be another inquisition. It is astonishing that intelligent men do not read more clearly the lessons of history.

There are certainly some considerations which ought to be brought to the attention of Congress before this bill is acted upon. It is possible that it may be discovered that the great majority even of professed Christians are indulging in a “licensed disregard for the [true] Sabbath.”

The other bill, introduced by Mr. Wadsworth, of New York, is substantially the same as one which was before the last Congress, and requires ‘certain places of business in the District of Columbia to be closed on Sunday.’ We reserve to a future time the consideration of this bill.

Does any one question the assertion that there is a growing tendency to enact religious legislation? Let earnest efforts be put forth to disseminate right principles upon this vital subject.