A Religious Liberty Campaign in the Northwest
By H. W. Cottrell
A SUNDAY law similar to the colonial “blue laws” enacted in 1854, amended in 1864 and 1865, and remaining a “dead letter” until a few weeks ago, has now been resurrected and enforced upon certain offenders in the State of Oregon. This law forbids the keeping open of any “store, shop, grocery, bowling alley, billiard room, or tippling house, for the purpose of labor or traffic, or any place of amusement, on the first day of the week, commonly called ‘Sunday’ or the ‘Lord’s Day.’” Its inconsistency may be seen by comparing with the above-named lines of business its exemptions which follow: “Theaters, the keepers of drug stores, doctor shops, undertakers, livery-stable keepers, butchers, and bakers.” The first case was tried before Circuit Judge Morrow, who pronounced the law unconstitutional. However, in an appealed suit this decision was reversed, the law being declared constitutional by Justice Burnett of the State Supreme Court. Justice Burnett justifies the statutory exemptions. The trades exempted, said he, “minister to wants that are more imperative, as a rule, than those supplied by the general run of business in the occupations named, while theaters afford mental diversion conducive to rest and relaxation.” The query may arise in the minds of some well-disposed persons whether the game of bowling would not be fully as great mental relaxation to those who engage in it for pleasure, as the theater is to those who attend it for “mental diversion.” Nevertheless, Justice Burnett questions, in his decision, the wisdom of the men who enacted the Sunday law, and of necessity therefore must also question the justice of the law. Said he, “We are concerned only with the authority and not with the wisdom of the law-makers.” The Sunday law of 1854, as reenacted by the Oregon Legislature in 1864, not only specified lines of business that must remain closed on Sunday, but decreed that no person “shall do any secular business or labor other than works of mercy.” This clause was omitted from the amended law as adopted Dec. 18, 1865. The 1865 law is the same as the present law, with the exception that theaters have since been substituted for barbers in the list of industries permitted to remain open on Sunday. As soon as the agitation over the Sunday closing arose in the State, Mr. G. L. Tufts, of the National Reform Association, and their superintendent on this coast, came up from Berkeley, Cal., where he resides, and at once took an active part in promoting the agitation for Sunday closing. In the interest of the natural rights of every man, woman, and child, the Religious Liberty Association started an educational campaign throughout the State, by securing theaters or opera houses for lectures in the following places: The three largest theaters in Portland, and one each in Salem, Eugene, Albany, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, McMinnville, Newberg, St. John’s, Woodburn, Oregon City, Dallas, Cottage Grove, and Roseburg in Oregon, and Tacoma and Seattle in Washington. We were favored with the services of Prof. C. S. Longacre and Elder Luther Warren for a few days, and Elder W. M. Healey remained with us throughout the entire campaign. The assistance of these brethren was much appreciated. It is our purpose to keep the educational campaign going until next fall, when a measure to repeal the existing Sunday closing law will be initiated, placed upon the ballot, and submitted to the vote of the people. We are confident the people of Oregon will repeal this unjust law. There will also be initiated and placed upon the ballot a measure for a still more stringent Sunday law, speaking of which Mr. G. L. Tufts, the chief promoter of the religious Sunday closing, in an article in the Portland Oregonian, Oct. 23, 1915, said: “We highly esteem the opinion of the Oregonian. For this reason we will submit a copy of our proposed bill for its consideration and criticism before going to print. The editor labors under the mistake that we propose to force people to rest on Sundays, whether or no. That may be said of the Sunday laws of some of the States.” Various Portland papers have presented strong editorials against the injustice of such laws. There is no need in gospel work of greater importance at this hour, than that every lover of right and liberty throw on the searchlight of publicity, that the unsuspecting multitudes within the sphere of his influence may see the snare that is being set for their feet through the religio-civil invasion of the inherent right of personal choice.