Your ShelfYour Projects

The Tennessee Trial

5%

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D.C. · Jan 8, 1914

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 91, No. 2.

Read the full edition

The Tennessee Trial

By C. S. L.

WE thought our people would be interested to learn some of the particulars of the prosecution of Brother J. S. Rooker, at Waverly, Tenn., for violation of the Sunday law. The trial occurred on Tuesday, December 16. As previously reported, the court convicted Brother Rooker and fined him one dollar.
Hon. Cyrus Simmons, of Knoxville, Tenn., was the attorney for the defendant, and Attorney-General Bowman prosecuted the case on behalf of the State of Tennessee. It was a long, hard battle, lasting three hours, and the jury deliberated for another hour before they could come to an agreement. Every inch of the ground was contested; but by the special help of the Lord the truth and religious liberty principles were ably advocated and defended by Brother Simmons. Every one present, except the attorney-general, was ready to admit that we had the truth on our side and produced the ablest arguments during the trial.
There were about ten lawyers present, and they admitted to us that we had the best of the argument even though the law was against us. They said they never knew there was so much involved in the Sunday question, and that they were going to read up on the subject and do all they could to repeal or change the law if they ever got a chance at it. Six of the jurymen with whom we had conversation afterward, agreed it was a bad law, and that our people ought to enjoy equal protection with those of other faiths in the State of Tennessee. Eight of the jurymen cast their votes to acquit on the first ballot. But the others insisted that they were under oath to uphold the Sunday law, and with this argument the rest were finally persuaded to cast their votes also for conviction.
The courthouse was well filled with spectators. The deepest interest was manifested, and it was very evident from the remarks that were made the following evening that we had the hearts and sympathies of “the common people.”
The February number of the Watchman will give the full details of the trial, and we trust it will be given a wide circulation not only in Tennessee, but throughout the whole country. The Liberty magazine for the first quarter of this year also gives an interesting account of this and former trials in Tennessee.
As soon as the court had convened and the indictment was read, Attorney Simmons attempted to induce the court to accept a demurrer which he had prepared against the indictment, and made a motion to quash the case, but the court overruled the demurrer.
Court: “I think the indictment charges the offense sufficiently to put the defendant on no exception in view of our statutes and in view of liberal interpretation of preceding cases. The demurrer will be overruled. All the questions following the first ground of demurrer have been settled by the supreme court of Tennessee, and they are not open to controversy so far as this court is concerned.”
Mr. Simmons: “I have a manuscript of description on second grounds for a demurrer.”
Court: “When rendered?”
Mr. Simmons: “In 1899, on the ground that the Sunday law is obsolete, openly and universally violated. It is after the style of this case. It covers the violation of every Sunday statute for the purpose of paying penalty under statutes. The construction of the statute came under the ruling of the court and later this decision by the court of civil appeals was affirmed by the supreme court of the Knoxville division.”
Court: “I would not follow court of civil appeal against supreme court of the State of Tennessee.”
Mr. Simmons: “This case was that of a man running a restaurant in Knoxville, and conducting a little fruit stand in the suburbs of the city, which he kept open selling fruits, etc., on Sunday. The court held that he was not amenable to the statutes because he was not pursuing his ordinary avocation of life. His business was to run a restaurant in Knoxville, and this did not come within the definition of the statute.”
Court: “You need not proceed further, my ruling is that that action did not come within the province of the statute. I must overrule your demurrer on second grounds.”
Mr. Simmons: “Your Honor, in support of the ground for a justifiable reason for a demurrer I wish to present two special pleas. These special pleas are based on the rights of the individual concerning his religious belief and the free exercise of his conscience as set forth in the bill of rights in Tennessee.”
Court: “You need not read any further. I cannot set aside the decision of the supreme court. The supreme court in the Parker case, as recorded in ‘16 Lea,’ has given a judicial decision in which the religious belief and the rights of conscience as set forth by Mr. Parker were overruled and held as not sufficient ground to exempt from the observance of the Sunday law of Tennessee. Your pleas would not be persuasive in the face of the supreme court decision. I do not care to hear anything further on the demurrer. It is not necessary to consume time on matters which have been decided by higher authority. I could not override the decision of the supreme court. I am firmly bound by what the supreme court has done. As a lawyer, you know that as a judge of an inferior court I am bound by the decisions of the supreme court, otherwise I am subject to impeachment. As far as any question of conscience is concerned, it is not necessary to consume time upon that proposition. Are you ready for trial?”
After this preliminary argument the trial began in real earnest. It was a nerve-racking experience from beginning to end. It was very apparent after this experience that we were at the mercy of the court, that an inexorablelaw held us in its grip, and that the most sacred guaranties of the rights of conscience and religious belief as set forth in both national and State constitutions counted for nothing in the face of a judicial decision of a State supreme court, rendered by one man on the bench who was evidently biased by his own religious convictions when he rendered his decision in the Parker case,—one of our brethren who was formerly convicted for the same offense.
One of the peculiar features of the case was that each of the prosecuting witnesses, and the neighbor who indicted Brother Rooker, admitted that they had occasionally worked on Sundays, even to the hoeing of corn, for which they were prosecuting the defendant, but that they had not done it within a year, and so they did not violate the law, as it had to be within a year from date of the indictment to be a violation of the law. Moreover, none of the witnesses except Brother Rooker's own son had seen him at work on Sunday at any time. They had merely seen him pass along the road to his fields, which were three miles from any public road. Yet they convicted him on the ground that his work on Sunday was a public nuisance and set a bad example before the public in that it corrupted public morals.
Evidence was also produced that many of the defendant's neighbors worked regularly on Sunday, cutting wood, rafting logs, fishing, cultivating fields, shelling corn, etc., all prohibited under the Sunday law; but because they did not do these things on religious grounds, the law was so construed by the court as to exempt them from its penalty. But when the statute is called into question on the plea of the rights of conscience and religious convictions, then the Sunday law must be upheld according to the decision of the court. Conscientious convictions must be set aside, and the penalty must be inflicted.
The most interesting features of the trial were the speeches of the attorney-general, those of the attorney for the defense, and the charge of the judge to the jury. These will be found in the issue of the Liberty magazine for the first quarter of 1914.
One thing that impressed us very much was the fact that the law of Tennessee is so constructed in reference to the penalty for Sunday violations that the State can collect the fine and costs if a person is worth more than $2,000; and the individual has no option in the matter. For a succession of violations, the court can impose any fine in its discretion. This shows us plainly that the time is not far distant when our property may be confiscated. Now is the time to use our means in the cause of God.
C. S. L.