A Notable Discussion in Congress
By C. M. S.
It is a cause of rejoicing to every lover of present truth when the principles for which we are contending are voiced in high places by men of renown. It is not because we feel the truths enunciated are any truer because of their promulgation by such ones in such places, but rather because the principles espoused, are, by such means, brought more prominently and forcefully to the attention of the world. On May 26, in the Senate of the United States, the measure known as the Johnston Sunday Rest Bill for the District of Columbia was called up and read in full by the secretary. Senator Heyburn, of Idaho, asked that the consideration of the bill might be postponed. On this objection the vice-president ruled that the bill would “go over.” The author of the measure objected to this disposition of his bill, and demanded to know why the senator from Idaho objected to having the bill considered then. Senator Heyburn replied that the questions involved were of more than passing importance, and that such a measure could not be discussed under a five-minute rule. On a suggestion from Mr. Heyburn, to which the vice-president agreed, a motion was made by Senator Johnston to take up the measure at once. To this the Senate agreed, and this took it out from under the five-minute rule. Senator Heyburn then proceeded to discuss the measure on its merits. To furnish a basis for his remarks, Senator Heyburn proposed an amendment, striking out the greater portion of the bill. He said:— I have always been opposed to this class of legislation. In the very early days of the settlement of this country we had a great deal of it, and on the statute-books of many of the States there are now provisions which are termed “blue laws,” that are ignored. There are some now in existence relative to the District of Columbia that are not observed nor enforced. We can not make people good by legislation. You can punish them for being bad. . . . I have a due regard for the observance of the sabbath, and I believe it should be observed, but I do not believe in legislation compelling one to do it. This measure is of more than passing importance. I have not thought it would pass without considerable discussion. I have heard it suggested that it was a delicate question upon which to speak. I do not feel it to be such. A man who can not discuss his religion has none; a man who is afraid to discuss it has none. I do not think this is an appropriate place in which to discuss religious questions, except so far as they may be relied upon as a basis of legislation, but I can not refrain from expressing my regret that it is proposed in Congress to deal with questions involved in this bill. I think I opposed a similar bill on a former occasion, and it was charged in certain places that I was an irreligious person, and that I did not believe11in orderly conduct on the sabbath day. There is no foundation for that charge. I have always been a person of strong religious convictions. My ancestors have always been largely interested in religious principle and the development of it. I have followed in their footsteps, and it is because of that, at least in part, that I do not approve of this class of legislation. It was such legislation as this that wrote the annals of bloodshed and oppression and intolerance in the religious history of the world, where a part of the people undertook to be sponsors for the consciences of another part. The senator then went on to analyze the bill, phrase by phrase, showing its inconsistencies and inequalities. Concerning the clause by which it is proposed to exempt from the provisions of the measure “members of a religious society who observe as a sabbath any other day in the week than Sunday,” he made this observation:— In other words, this legislation grants special privileges to people who are members of religious societies. More than half the world and more than half the people in this city are not members of any religious society. It grants a special privilege to those who are, which is withheld from those who are not. The law in this land, general and local, was intended to insure perfect freedom and independence to the citizen in regard to the observance of religious principles. So, as a matter of principle, I am opposed to such legislation. . . . No man has the right to set himself up as the moral standard of all the community, or of any part of the community except himself. As to the use of the sabbath day, every man, so far as personal acts that do not include any acts of lawlessness are concerned, should be the guardian of his own morals. It was never intended that the law should lay down the rules that should constitute a good man, and say that all men must live up to those rules. That never was the intention of the lawmakers, and we discovered it very soon after we became a nation, and had organized government, and we abandoned that kind of legislation. It was the legislation that resulted in whipping people at the tail of the cart, placing them in the stocks, branding them upon the hands, and so forth. That was the kind of legislation under which some person, or coterie of persons, undertook to set themselves up as the censors of the morals of the people. I thought that age had passed. I never expected to see it revived, and I never expected to see an attempt made in the Congress of the United States to prescribe rules that are intended, I presume, to supplement the ten commandments; and I suppose every year, according to the temper of a part of the people, we shall have new prohibitions and restrictions. . . . If you are going into this question, go into it to the limit, and compel the people to live as the old Puritans of New England did, when they were not allowed to have fire in their churches, and when they had to take their luncheons with them, and eat them in cold sheds or where they might. If you are going to be erratic in legislation, be erratic according to some established rule, the rule of our ancestors. If you are going to recognize the rule that is recognized, or, at least, I thought it was, in all parts of this country, of religious freedom and freedom of personal action so long as it violates no law of the land, and no contractual right of any one,—if you are going to uphold that kind of religious freedom,—you can not pass this bill. What authority have we, whence do we derive authority, under the Constitution, to enact legislation that will interfere with the personal action of a citizen that is in violation of no law applicable to the whole country? At this point Senator Gallinger, of New Hampshire, made the statement that laws similar to this were in force in a large number of the States. In replying, Senator Heyburn asked whether Senator Gallinger would be in favor of a law similar to this for the whole United States. Senator Gallinger replied: “I would on this subject. I do not know that I would take the exact phraseology of this bill; but I would in a general way.” The last question and its answer illustrate the possibility and the probability of the enactment of a law which many had supposed never could be enacted in this country—a law passed by the national government for the enforcement of a religious observance upon the people of the whole country. If it could be questioned—and who can question it?—that when the Congress of the United States passes a law enforcing the observance of Sunday upon the people of the District of Columbia, the nation has, by official act, voted a nullification of the fourth commandment of the decalogue, there certainly could be no question that, when Congress passes a law compelling the observance of Sunday by all the people of the nation, the nation has voted to nullify that divine precept. It is worth while to note that such a thing has been advocated in the Senate of the United States. But it is pleasant to know that there was even one man in the Senate brave enough to point out the injustice of such a measure, and protest against its enactment. There are developments each year which point with unmistakable certainty to the culmination of the work.