Further Proposed Legislation in Behalf of Sunday
By Editor
At the second quadrennial session of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, which was held in Chicago, Dec. 4-9, 1912, that great organization again pledged itself, by a resolution to work for legislation in behalf of Sunday. The resolution adopted reads as follows:— “We earnestly recommend to State and local federations of churches the importance of not only guarding against the repeal or weakening of the laws we now have providing for Sunday rest, but of placing on our statute-books laws securing one day in seven as a rest day for all classes of working men, and the securing to every community a more complete protection against all Sunday practises that tend to demoralize society or weaken the forces that make for virtue and righteousness. As a means to this end, we heartily cooperate with the social service commission of the council in its nation-wide campaign for one day in seven for the workers.” From the tenor of this resolution, it is perfectly clear that the council regarded a law providing for “one day in seven as a day of rest,” as one kind of legislation in behalf of Sunday. Direct evidence to this effect, which will be presented later, has been furnished by the secretary of the council. As a part of the plan to carry this resolution into effect, a bill has been prepared by the American Association for Labor Legislation for introduction in all States, and a campaign in behalf of this measure is now being conducted by the Commission on the Church and Social Service, a department of the Federal Council. The bill which it is thus proposed to have enacted by every State legislature, reads as follows:— “Standard Bill for One Day of Rest in Seven
“AN ACT to promote the public health by providing for one day of rest in seven for employees in certain employments. “Be it enacted, etc., as follows:— “Section 1. Scope of the Act. “Every employer of labor, whether a person, partnership, or corporation, engaged in carrying on any factory or mercantile establishment in this State, shall allow every person, except those specified in Section 2, employed in such factory or mercantile establishment, at least twenty-four consecutive hours of rest in every seven consecutive days. No employer shall operate any such factory or mercantile establishment on Sunday, unless he shall have complied with Section 3. Provided, however, that this act shall not authorize any work on Sunday not now authorized by law. “This act shall not apply to—- Janitors.
- Watchmen.
- Employees whose duties include no work on Sunday other than—
a. Setting sponges in bakeries.
b. Caring for live animals.
c. Maintaining fires.” “Section 3. Schedule for Sunday Workers. “Before operating on Sunday, every employer shall post in a conspicuous place on the premises a schedule containing a list of his employees who are required or allowed to work on Sunday and designating the day of rest for each, and shall file a copy of such schedule with the (Commissioner of Labor). The employer shall promptly file with the said (Commissioner) a copy of every change in such schedule. No employee shall be required or allowed to work on the day of rest so designated for him.” “Every employer shall keep a time-book showing the names and addresses of all employees and the hours worked by each of them in each day, and such time-book shall be open to inspection by the (Commissioner of Labor).” “Every employer who violates the provisions of this act, or any of them, shall be liable to the State for a penalty of — dollars for each offense, recoverable by civil action by the (Commissioner of Labor).” “Section 6. Time of Taking Effect. “This act shall take effect October first, nineteen hundred and thirteen.” While this measure purports to be “an act to promote the public health,” it is evident on the face of it that it is a part of the movement to secure the enactment of laws either enforcing the observance of Sunday or in some way contributing to that end. In the brief which accompanies this proposed act, occurs the following statement:— “The Sunday laws enacted in the first instance to protect the Sabbath from desecration, have not only in the turmoil and rush of modern conditions failed to do that, but have also signally failed to protect men from the debasing effects of continuous seven-day toil.” Here a frank admission is made that the real purpose in the enactment of Sunday laws in general is “to protect the Sabbath from desecration.” We have always maintained this to be the case, although it has been stoutly declared with reference to various bills relating to work on Sunday that they were not of a religious character and were not designed to enforce any religious observance. The Sunday laws now upon the statute-books having “signally failed” to accomplish what they were designed to accomplish, further legislation is sought on the basis of “one day of rest in seven.” If, however, the purpose of the bill is simply to secure to the working men a needed period of rest after six days of toil, why is it necessary to mention Sunday in any way? The physical system is built up just as satisfactorily by resting on one day of the week as by resting on another; and if there is no religious significance to this measure, and the whole purpose is honestly set forth in the title, why should it impose conditions upon the employer who desires to operate his establishment on Sunday? A reading of the bill will show that Sunday is mentioned five times in it,—twice in the first section, once in the second section, and twice in the third section. This is certainly sufficient evidence that those who wrote this act intended to secure legislation in behalf of Sunday. The exception made in Section 2, exempting from the provisions of this bill “employees whose duties include no work on Sunday other than” certain necessary work mentioned, is plain proof that a leading purpose of this bill is to prevent Sunday work. But no extended argument is necessary to establish the fact that this proposed legislation will promote the observance of Sunday. An admission to this effect has been frankly made by the secretary of the commission which is urging its passage. When he was informed that this bill would be opposed by Seventh-day Adventists, and it was suggested to him that a measure providing for one day of rest in seven with no reference whatever to Sunday might be more acceptable to this denomination, he replied thus: “We have put it on the basis of one day’s rest in seven. Of course, as a matter of fact, we know perfectly well that this means the strengthening of Sunday.” As this bill has not been introduced, so far as we know, either in Congress or in any State legislature, we have not been able thus far to make any direct protest against it; but the presidents of local conferences and all religious liberty secretaries have been notified of the purpose to secure this legislation, have been furnished with a leaflet analyzing its provisions, and have been urged to be ready to act whenever it may be introduced into any local legislature. This nation-wide effort to secure legislation in behalf of the observance of Sunday will furnish a splendid opportunity for the presentation of the right principles relating to this subject, and the fullest advantage should be taken of it. Suitable literature, such as the Religious Liberty Leaflets and the magazine Liberty, should be freely circulated, and every reasonable effort should be made to prevent both legislators and people in general from committing themselves on the wrong side of this question for lack of proper information. That it pays to keep up this campaign of education is shown by the following extract, taken from a recent letter written to the secretary of this department by a leading senator, who is chairman of one of the important committees of the Senate:— “I have always felt that the Seventh-day Adventists made a mistake in seeking to interfere with laws regulating Sunday labor; but the more I have considered the matter in the last year or two, the more I am disposed to think that there are, to say the least, two sides to the question.” We hope those whose duty it is to attend to this special feature of our work will take renewed courage and put forth most earnest efforts at this critical time.