Religious Legislation in New York
THE following is a partial report of a public hearing before the State of New York Senate Codes Committee, Feb. 19, 1913, on Senate Bills Nos. 11 and 371, relative to vaudeville, and the exhibition of pictures, either moving or stationary, on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday. Chairman of the committee and author of Bill No. 371, Senator Stephen J. Stilwell. Before many persons had been heard, the speakers were limited to five minutes each, and Senator Stilwell let it be known that he had introduced the bill by request, and that it had been drawn by Dr. Swartz of the Civic League, and Rev. O. R. Miller, editor of the Reform Bulletin, who were present and in charge of the representatives of the church interests appearing to urge the favorable consideration of the measures. They presented the reasons usually advanced for compulsory Sunday observance. Representatives of the theatrical and moving-picture interests appeared in opposition to the measures, and urged their educational value, and that if not permitted on Sunday many persons could never be benefited thereby. According to previous arrangement, after these parties had been heard, the chairman announced that there were those present who wished to be heard in opposition for other reasons than those previously offered. Elder W. H. Holden then spoke of the fundamental principles involved in the proposed legislation, of the attitude of Seventh-day Adventists, and he did not spare as he spoke of those bodies, especially Christians, who sought the aid of the civil power in securing Sabbath observance. He exceeded his time limit, and when the chairman reminded him of that fact the opposing clergymen applauded derisively, and were rebuked by the chairman. The experience of the next speaker was as follows:— “Chairman: What is your name?
“Speaker: J. E. Jayne.
“Chairman: Whom do you represent?
“Speaker: The New York Religious Liberty Association. “Chairman: If possible, Mr. Jayne, confine your remarks to five minutes. “Speaker: I shall be brief. I wish to refer to the Stilwell Bill No. 371 only. In explanation of this fact I will state that I hold no brief for vaudeville or moving-picture shows on any day. “Please note that on page two, lines three to five, are these words, ‘the presenting or in any manner displaying pictures or views, either moving or stationary.’” “We are not concerned with the intentions of the proponents of this bill, but we are concerned with the bill itself, because, if enacted, it is the law.” “We submit to you that should this bill become law and one of these good ministers who favor it should on Sunday hang up a picture of the apostle Paul and deliver a lecture on his missionary journeys, that good minister would thereby become a lawbreaker, a criminal.” “Chairman: I believe, Mr. Jayne, that they have stated that they wish to offer an amendment to this feature of the bill. I do not know as you were in when they mentioned this fact.” “Speaker: All right, Mr. Chairman, I should think they would!” “Again, Mr. Chairman, we invite your attention to page two, line eleven, and the ninth word, ‘misdemeanor.’” “By this provision certain conduct is constituted a misdemeanor on Sunday and wholly legitimate on Monday. Why is this? Is there any difference in the conduct itself?—Impossible, because the acts are identical in character. Of necessity, therefore, the difference is in the days, not in the acts, and in the days only. But wherein do Sunday and Monday differ? They can differ but in one particular, namely, some men regard Sunday as a holy day, sacred time, religious in character. That fact introduces religion into the proposed legislation. Such is improper. It is positively wrong. If the state can legislate concerning one religious act, as such, it may with equal justification legislate concerning every religious act, as such. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, one speaker to-day assured this committee that ‘fortunately, the State of New York has reenacted the entire Mosaic code.’ But that is folly. It is absolutely impossible for the State of New York to do so. The dear brother simply did not know what he was talking about; because the ten commandments are the law of God. They are moral. We must sharply differentiate between moral and civil, between sin and crime. That may be sin which is not crime.” “Speaker: God’s law, being moral, forbids evil thoughts as well as evil acts. The man who hates his brother is, according to God’s law, a murderer. But civil law can not deal with that man as a murderer until he translates his thought into an act and kills his brother. Why! even good ministers sometimes hate each other. What a spectacle it would be should the government treat them as murderers!” “It is the work of the church to teach the moral law of God, and to advance the spiritual kingdom of God, and to do that only; and in so doing it is very useful. But with that matter the state can have absolutely nothing to do.” “It is the business of the state to protect each, yes, even the weakest of its citizens, in the exercise of his inalienable rights; in his right to worship God, and in his right not to worship God, as his own conscience dictates; to protect its citizens in worshiping God, so long as they do not make that worship, or form of worship, a cloak under which to invade the equal rights of their fellows; to protect them in their right not to worship God, so long as they do not in that invade the equal rights of their fellows. Thus far may civil government go and no farther.” “A Senator: Mr. Jayne, do you think, then, that the law should permit the sale of liquor on Sunday?” “Speaker: No! nor on any other day.” “A Clergyman: Mr. Jayne, is the state not responsible for the enactment of moral laws?” “Speaker: No, certainly not. The state is powerless either to enact or to enforce moral laws.” “The Clergyman: Then, Mr. Jayne, how about the government of Israel? That government punished its subjects for gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. That government was a model for—” “Speaker: Hold on! brother, I am to answer that question, not yourself—that is, if it is the wish of this committee to have it answered.” “Mr. Chairman, do you wish me to answer that question?” “Chairman: Yes, go on; this is interesting.” “Speaker: Yes, there is something intensely interesting and peculiarly instructive in studying this legislation. The Hebrew government was a theocracy. God, through Moses, spoke to the people. God was the actual legislator, the real ruler.” “After the death of Moses this arrangement was continued through Joshua, the elders that outlived Joshua, and the judges until Samuel the prophet.” “Then the people said, Make us a king that we may be like the nations around us. This request displeased Samuel. He complained. God said to him, ‘They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not rule over them.’ This statement proves that until that date God had continued as the real ruler in Israel. Furthermore, he directed Samuel to grant them a king, and to tell them that if they would obey God he would continue with their kings as he had been with their judges. Under this arrangement God continued to be identified with the Hebrews. Often they did wrong. God rebuked them severely. He said, ‘Thou hast made me to serve with thy sins.’ Ye have limited the Holy One of Israel.” “Finally Zedekiah made a covenant with Babylon. God’s honor was involved in the keeping of that covenant. Zedekiah broke it. God told him he should die in Babylon—and he did.” “Then came a change. God would no longer endure the perversity of the Hebrew national government. Therefore, he called Nebuchadnezzar, the heathen king of Babylon, his servant, and gave everything under the heavens into his hands, that all nations should serve and obey him. However, in so doing, God made it plain that this arrangement was not to be permanent. Of that matter he said: ‘I will overturn, overturn, overturn it; and it shall be no more.’ He did overturn it. Three overturnings are331specified. Medo-Persia overturned Babylon, Grecia overturned Medo-Persia, Rome overturned Grecia. Now, mark God’s further declaration: ‘It shall be no more until,’—until, when?—‘until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.’ Then,—at that time when he shall come whose right it is,—and not until then, shall the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ, who shall possess them forever.” “Therefore, my brother, from the destruction of that theocracy until the time of our Lord’s return it will be utterly impossible to establish a true theocracy upon this earth. God has said, ‘It shall be no more.’ Men have tried it. They have failed. The only thing they could do was to put themselves in the place of God and try to enact moral laws for him.” “Jesus understood this. His disciples did not. He found it necessary to both instruct and reprove them. He said, ‘My kingdom is not of this world, else would my servants fight.’ ‘Put up thy sword into the sheath.’ ‘The kingdom of God cometh not with observation.’ ‘The kingdom of God is within you.’” “Within the individual, and there only, can the kingdom of God be established. He into whose heart it has not entered is still an alien from the commonwealth of Israel, a stranger to the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. It is the work of the church to establish that kingdom in the hearts of men, and there only. In so doing it is indeed beautiful. With such work the state of necessity can have nothing to do. It must absolutely confine itself to the task of so protecting each citizen that no subject may with impunity invade the equal rights of his fellow. That far it should go, but no farther. In framing our government our fathers recognized these principles. They wrote them into our constitutional law. They are the genius of American institutions.” “Mr. Chairman, our association is anxious that you shall jealously guard these principles and shall frame all legislation in accordance with them. They are valuable—far too precious to be forsaken. I thank you for your courtesy.” Elder L. T. Nicola followed and re-enforced the foregoing arguments with quotations from Drs. Barnes and Spurgeon, and other eminent authorities, both within and without the church. In rebuttal, Dr. Swartz, of the Civic League, devoted his entire attention to the latter propositions. He assured the committee that these men observed Saturday as a rival Sabbath to Sunday, and that that was the real reason for their attitude. He urged that the objection to religious legislation was unworthy of consideration, and stated that if we tried to interfere with the Mormons in their practise of polygamy they would plead that we were interfering with their religious liberty. At this juncture, Senator Roosevelt interrupted the speaker as follows:— “I take it, then, Mr. Swartz, that you think it is all right for these Mormons to have as many wives as they wish, just so they have but one wife on Sunday.” At this the entire room broke into uproarious laughter, and the hearing closed. The veneer was too thin. It would not conceal what was beneath it. A significant article, written in a sarcastic vein, but expressing rather forcibly an editorial view of this hearing, appeared in Pros and Cons, a weekly paper printed privately, circulating principally among senators and representatives and men who watch legislation. It prints the title and principal provisions of the various bills, comments upon matters of interest concerning them, and announces and reports public hearings. The article which bore the title, “The Smile Faded, the Grin Dried,” is here quoted entire:— “Yes, they did, until they looked like a last year’s bouquet and a lemon which has lain on the shelf for about a month. It came about in this way: Senator Stilwell, presiding at the hearing on the so-called ‘Stilwell bill,’ prohibiting vaudeville and other entertainments on Sunday, had denied parentage of the same, stating that he had introduced it at the request of Rev. O. R. Miller and Dr. Swartz. The moving-picture and theatrical men had voiced their opposition, and the clergymen had expressed their approval, and all had gone as usual, until Rev. J. E. Jayne and associates, representing the New York Religious Liberty Association, began to take a hand. It was then the Miller smile unhinged and the lemon grin burst open. What could be said worth hearing in addition to what had already been put forth? Theirs, by rights, should have been accepted as the ‘last word,’ and authoritative.” “However, the smiling pair held their peace, for previous experience had done certain things for them.” “But not so with a bewhiskered cleric from another part of the State, who first tried to applaud derisively, but was silenced, then interrupted with irrelevant questions, and wound up by demanding a full-page explanation. He found what he had been looking for, also a little more. Meeting the inquiring glances of his companions, he slowly and sadly shook his head. He had turned his question box upside down and found it empty! The clerical advocates of church and state united had been met upon their own ground and silenced. And by this time the unfolding smile and expansive grin had been folded up and laid aside for a needed rest.”