The Johnston Sunday Bill Hearing
By C. M. Snow
The change which the last election made in the political complexion of the country is faithfully echoed in the various committees of Congress. Many new faces are seen on these committees, and faces with which we have grown familiar in past hearings were missing at the recent hearing on the Johnston Sunday bill. To the Committee on Education and Labor, a subcommittee of the District Committee of the Senate, the Johnston Sunday bill for the District had been referred; and this committee granted a hearing on Wednesday, May 17, at twelve o'clock, noon. The face of Senator Johnston, the author of the bill, was the only one with which we had grown familiar at previous hearings. The committee consisted of Senator Works, of California (chairman); William P. Dillingham, of Vermont; Charles Curtis, of Kansas; Joseph F. Johnston, of Alabama; and Atlee Pomerene, of Ohio. A goodly number who were opposed to the measure gathered in the District of Columbia committee-room at the appointed hour to listen to the arguments presented and the questions and answers elicited by the presentation of the protests. The chairman announced that the hearing would cover one hour and three-quarters, and asked if there was any one present to speak in defense of the bill. No one responded. He then indicated that those opposed to the bill were at liberty to present their arguments. Argument by Elder Russell
Elder K. C. Russell was the first speaker. After stating whom he represented, thanking the committee for granting the hearing, and declaring his belief that the framer of the bill was doubtless acting in what he considered to be the best interests of the community, Elder Russell said:— “We wish to correct a few statements that have been made regarding the attitude of our people as a denomination. It has been repeatedly stated by the friends of this measure that we are in league with the saloon element and also with the picture-show interests. But as a people we stand for temperance, for the prohibition of the liquor traffic. We are opposed to the Sunday saloon and to the saloon on every day of the week, and we are not in league with the picture-show men. We are here to oppose this measure on principle, not only for our own selves, but, we believe, for every citizen of this country; because we believe that every citizen has a right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and to keep whatever day he chooses, or not to observe any if he does not choose to do so.” The Chairman: “Do you regard this as a bill affecting religious rights?” Elder Russell: “Yes, sir; we believe it is a religious measure, and that the religious character of it is apparent.” The Chairman: “I ask the question because I had not so considered it.” Mr. Pomerene: “Suppose Monday had been selected instead of Sunday, would you object to the bill then?” Elder Russell: “If it were to be observed as a religious day, yes.” Mr. Pomerene: “I do not understand that the bill provides it shall be observed as a religious day.” Mr. Johnston: “It not only does not provide that, but it excepts those who observe some other day as a day of rest.” Elder Russell: “It requires the proper observance of Sunday as a day of rest. Sunday is a religious institution, and the whole history of Sunday legislation shows it to be religious. The exemption clause states that persons who are members of a religious society who observe as a sabbath any other day in the week than Sunday shall not be liable to the penalties prescribed in this act if they observe as a sabbath one day in each seven, as herein provided.” A Senator: “That is out of respect for your position.” Elder Russell: “We appreciate that respect.” Senator Curtis: “It shows that Sunday is the day enjoined in the bill.” Elder Russell: “We are exempted upon the grounds that we are observing another day religiously, as this bill provides. The whole bill shows its religious character. It is therefore unconstitutional, being out of harmony with the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” One of the senators desired to know what courts had upheld the contention that Sunday laws were unconstitutional. The speaker, not having a list of these at hand, could not give the desired information, but declared that the history of Sunday legislation from the beginning had testified to its religious character. The Chairman: “That is because people choose to make it so, not because it is provided so in its very nature.” Origin of Sunday Legislation
Elder Russell: “All present Sunday laws are relics of the old Sunday law of Charles II. Sunday legislation began in 321 with Constantine’s Sunday law, and you will notice—” Mr. Johnston: “Constantine’s law was not the first. The ten commandments were the first Sabbath law.” Elder Russell: “The Author of the ten-commandment Sabbath law was the one who said: ‘Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ The Author of the Sabbath institution separates between religious and civil matters. The Sabbath rests upon the same basis as does the Lord’s supper and baptism. They are all of a religious character. These latter, of course, we would not think of enforcing, yet there have been instances where government has enforced baptism. But to show that this is not a civil measure, it goes on to define what you shall do on that day. We have civil holidays, but I have never heard of an instance where the law prohibited labor on these days. A man is permitted on such days to do what he elects to do; but it is not so on Sunday. Sunday laws make it a crime to do certain kinds of work that are perfectly legitimate on other days of the week.” Elder Russell proceeded to show, then, the religious character of the old Sunday law of Charles II, enacted in 1676, upon which all subsequent Sunday laws are based; also to show the glaring religious features of the first Sunday bill introduced by Senator Henry W. Blair, in 1888; and, further, how the bill under consideration partakes of the same nature. In answer to questions by Senator Pomerene, Elder Russell made it plain that this denomination stands uncompromisingly opposed to any Sunday legislation whatsoever. In answer to the chairman’s question as to why we objected to Sunday being protected by proper regulations, Elder Russell said: “The Sabbath pertains to the heart. We believe that those who religiously observe Sunday ought to refrain from anything of an objectionable character; but when shows, games, and sports are uncivil, they ought to be prohibited not merely on Sunday but on every day.” Senator Curtis: “They are closing the post-offices now on Sunday.” Elder Russell: “Yes, but it is not done by legislation; but when they ask the government to make a law to do it, then we object.” The Chairman Favors Sunday Laws
The chairman showed his willingness to see laws enacted for the more strict, compulsory observance of Sunday by declaring, when reference was made by the speaker to conditions in California, that “they play baseball there on Sunday, and do many other things that they ought not to do. I come from there myself.” This gives a very clear idea of the senator’s attitude toward Sunday-keeping, and it is an attitude which is very prevalent. It is this: That what ought not to be done on a Sabbath of divine appointment ought not to be done on Sunday; and those things that ought not to be done under these religious considerations ought to be prohibited by human law. The germ of a union of church and state is in such a position. Briefly, the following points were made in the remainder of Elder Russell’s argument:— Sunday laws are not needed to protect religious gatherings. Laws sufficient for that purpose were long ago enacted. The real purpose in the minds of Sunday-law promoters is that the people may be compelled to attend church. The settlement of religious controversies can not be accomplished by majority vote. The exemption clause in the bill proves its religious character, and the same power which put it there can withdraw it. Such legislation opens the way for other religious legislation, and similar laws now in force have resulted in religious persecution in the United States. Where such laws exist, prejudiced persons make use of them to persecute observers of another day. Congress has refused consistently for one hundred years to yield to the demand for such legislation. The promoters of this legislation hope that by securing a national Sunday law, they will have better success in securing more stringent State Sunday laws and in enforcing those they already have. Argument by Professor Prescott
The second opponent of the proposed law was Prof. W. W. Prescott. He said:— “It seems to me that the issue is very19simple and plain. I understand the chairman to say that if this measure is religious in its nature, or if it infringes upon any religious rights, he would not be in favor of it. It seems to me best, therefore, to confine our attention quite closely to the very provisions of the bill, and to the principle involved in such legislation as the very bill before us. From my standpoint, any law that distinguishes Sunday from the other days of the week, necessarily does this because of the peculiar character of the day. The chairman has suggested that this bill might apply to Monday or some other day, but you recognize the fact that it never does. There is no case on record where any law was ever proposed requiring cessation from work or amusements on any other day than Sunday.” The Chairman: “Suppose it did — suppose it did specify Monday?” Professor Prescott: “It would not be religious then, of course, because Monday is not religious; but the laws never do enforce any other day. The reason is because Sunday is generally observed as a day of rest and worship. But it seems quite impossible that there should be a law requiring abstinence from labor and sports permitted on other days unless there is something in the day. I have a word from the late Mr. Justice Brewer, of the United States Supreme Court, upon that point:— Justice Brewer’s Testimony
“‘It is true in many of the decisions this separation of the day [Sunday] is said to be authorized by the police power of the state, and exercised for purposes of health. At the same time, through a large majority of them there runs the thought of its being a religious day, consecrated by the commandment: “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.”’—The United States a Christian Nation, pages 29, 30. “In this statement Mr. Justice Brewer recognizes the fact that in the majority of cases there was yet found this idea that this was a religious day.” Senator Curtis: “What if this bill simply provided that it shall hereafter be unlawful for any circus to be held in the District of Columbia, or any theatrical performance or baseball game to be played on Sunday?” Professor Prescott: “I should have to object to any provision that recognizes a distinction of days by the legislature. While we grant to every individual the right to select any day that he may choose for rest, yet my contention is that as soon as the legislature enters upon that field, making a distinction between days, it must necessarily have a religious idea in it somewhere. It is because of our religious make-up, and custom, and scruples. It is impossible to pass a law compelling some one to do or not to do something on that day if he does not choose, without—” A Senator: “Do you believe that a man should be permitted to do anything he might choose to do on Sunday?” Professor Prescott: “No, sir; but I should have the same laws applying to all days. What is uncivil or unseemly on one day is just as uncivil, just as unseemly, on another day.” Senator Johnston inquired whether we should not consider the rights of the thirty thousand laborers who declare that they are compelled to work seven days in the week. Professor Prescott: “I should say that their claim is not well based. There are about one hundred thousand persons in this country who religiously observe the seventh day of the week. They ask for no legislation protecting them on that day, any more than on any other day. They have to take their own chances on securing employment. If they can not keep that day and keep their position, they lose their position. They have never made any request for a law protecting them in the observance of that day; and I might state that at a previous hearing, objection was made to the construction of buildings, that it interfered with religious worship. One of our churches is located on Twelfth Street, corner of M. An apartment house was erected next to that church; but religious worship was carried on in that house every seventh day. There was no suspension of work on that day, and we made no complaint and asked no special protection against it. That is our position, and that is the position which we consistently maintain in our own practise. Our position on the question of religious legislation, briefly stated, is this: The sphere for legislation is in civil matters only; and while I am heartily in favor of religion, it does not seem to me to be the proper sphere for legislation. That should be left wholly between man and God.” The Chairman: “As I understand it, you are contesting this legislation purely upon abstract principles, not because it infringes upon the rights of your people as religious people, but simply because you think there should be no legislation upon what pertains to religion?” Professor Prescott: “I should take the ground that this legislation takes away the religious right even of the one who observes the first day of the week as a religious day, for this reason: It is a matter that should be wholly voluntary. I am choosing to observe the seventh day; others choose to observe the first day of the week. That matter should be wholly voluntary, and every man be left where he can change his practise at any time, and where he will not be compelled by any power outside his own conscience to observe any day. The one who observes the first day of the week does it from conscientious scruples; but as soon as the legislature passes a law with reference to the observance of that day, it has changed that free will of his, and put compulsion upon it.” The Sunday Saloon Injected
Senator Pomerene: “Assuming that the people here were all Seventh-day Adventists, and that near your place of worship there were a lot of low-grade saloons keeping open, would you object to reaching that situation by legislation simply because it might be a recognition by the government of some day as a day of rest or a day of worship?” Professor Prescott: “I should object to that legislation if it were to be applied to that one day only. I should apply it to all days. Even if one should conscientiously observe the first day of the week, any legislation which compels him, as when a human law comes in and makes it compulsory upon him, takes away his freedom of choice. Now he is under compulsion of the legislature, and not a free citizen under God according to the light of his own conscience. The exemption clause to the first section of this bill reads, ‘Provided, That persons who are members of a religious society who observe as a sabbath any other day of the week than Sunday,’ etc.; ‘if they observe as a sabbath one day in each seven as herein provided.’ When this matter was before the Senate, an amendment was offered (Jan. 27, 1910) to strike out the word sabbath, and insert the words ‘day of rest.’” Professor Prescott read at this point the discussion between senators concerning this amendment, the quotation including the declaration of Senator Gallinger that the word sabbath ought to remain in the bill, and went on to say:— “That statement by Mr. Gallinger makes it clear that the bill does not call simply for a day of rest, but for sabbath observance, and it would not serve the purpose of this bill, as now worded, for one to rest on some other day than Sunday. I am absolutely opposed to this class of legislation. This discussion marks the bill as a religious bill, and that is the real point at issue.” Senator Curtis: “That is the only point.” Infringes the Rights of All
The Chairman: “If it were a religious bill that infringed upon the rights of any man, I should be opposed to it.” Professor Prescott: “When this matter comes up in this way, it seems to enter into the field of religious discussion, into religious controversies. One must observe the day as a sabbath. I regard this bill—not in terms—as demanding sabbath observance. It requires at least an outward regard of a day, and that day is selected, as I understand it, because of its religious character.” Senator Johnston: “Do not you think you might as well say it is selected because every State in the Union except one has selected it?” Professor Prescott: “I suppose it is selected for the same reason.” Senator Curtis: “But a circus parade on that day would be disagreeable.” Professor Prescott: “It would be disagreeable because the day is regarded as a religious day. It is always this day that is selected, and I suppose it is because of the nature of the day.” Senator Pomerene: “Because it is so generally observed—because that would satisfy more people.” Professor Prescott: “In view of all the history of the observance of the Sabbath, the underlying basis is because of the religious nature of the day. If the public health requires that men should rest one day in the week, the public health also requires that men should have sufficient sleep. That is just as important; and yet the legislature does not assume to direct when and how much men shall sleep; and so far as physical health is concerned, it is certainly of equal importance. The legislature does not direct men as to the number of times in the day they shall eat.” Senator Dillingham: “We forbid unnecessary noise at certain times, so that men can sleep.” Professor Prescott: “But that is very different from compelling men to sleep.20There is a marked difference between limiting the hours of labor and defining a legal day’s work, and prohibiting a man from doing more than a legal day’s work if he wishes to do it. When a man has finished his legal day’s work, he can go home and do work for himself. This measure prohibits men from doing work for themselves. “I thank the gentlemen for their attention, and shall now give way for others.” Dr. H. C. Kirk, president of the Secular League of Washington, was the next speaker. He made the point that the bill was in the nature of unnecessary legislation. He had interviewed prominent men, officials of the city, and they had declared the regulations of the city ample to protect citizens in their rights on Sunday. The bill would cause confusion because of the fine distinctions between things permitted and things prohibited, and would bring hardship upon many of the poor, who, through the hot summer especially, must buy their provisions from day to day, and can not afford ice to carry them over Sunday. He also declared the bill religious in its nature; and while it exempted from its provisions those who observe religiously the seventh day, it made no provision for those who, like himself, were not members of any religious society, and therefore could not religiously observe any day. He stated that if this law simply provided that no man should be compelled to labor more than six consecutive days, he would be in favor of it. The last opponent of the bill was Mr. John D. Bradley, who presented a strong and unanswerable argument proving that the bill was religious in its nature; that the framer of the bill had urged it upon religious grounds; and that those who are most strongly championing its passage are those who believe the keeping of Sunday to be a religious obligation. Many quotations were given from the previous utterances of the author of the bill, showing unquestionably that the bill was indited by considerations of a religious character. He disposed likewise of the fallacy that the bill is presented out of consideration for the working man, and showed how, at the sacrifice of the rights of the laborer, it aimed to enforce upon all the observance of a religious ordinance. It preferred that they perform this religious act upon Sunday; but if not, then they must bow to it upon some other day of the week. “I respectfully submit to the committee,” said the speaker, “that the twentieth century is not the time, and the capital of the republic of the United States is not the place, for the enactment and enforcement of such legislation.” Senator Curtis, of Kansas, proposed that, inasmuch as the time had come to close the hearing, another time be appointed for further consideration of the matter; but his suggestion was overruled. To a man, the committee seemed committed to the determination to enact some sort of Sunday law for the District. At the close of the hearing a formal, printed protest was presented to each member of the committee, setting forth specifically and briefly the position of Seventh-day Adventists in reference to such legislation, and outlining definitely the objectionable features of the bill. Later a copy of this protest was sent to each senator in Congress, and a strong letter was written to each as a final remonstrance against such legislation. The bill was favorably reported to the Senate on Monday, May 22, the recommendation being accompanied by a “Report” from the committee, in which the author of the bill used many expressions which prove all that its opponents contend for. This Report mentions Seventh-day Adventists as opposing the measure, and gives as one of their objections that the bill selects the first day of the week instead of the seventh. Of course, this is an utter misrepresentation of our position, and that point had been specifically noted in the hearing on the bill. It may be of interest to state that about the time of the hearing the Presbyterian General Assembly was in session at Atlantic City, N. J., and some very uncomplimentary things were said there, and some rather drastic resolutions adopted, regarding Sunday-keeping, or the lack of it, in Washington. The Washington press took the matter up at once, editorially and otherwise, condemning Washington’s accusers, and setting the city forth as a model one in the matter of Sunday observance. It was hoped that this, in view of the fact that there is no Sunday law in the District, might cause the legislators to see the important fact that a human law is not necessary to proper Sabbath observance. As the matter stands now, the bill has been favorably reported to the Senate, is upon the calendar, and may be put upon its passage any day. On May 24 Senator Johnston attempted to have the bill called up and passed; but Senator Smoot, of Utah, objected. He stated that he had received a number of letters regarding this bill and desired time to consider the matter. Senator Johnston declared that the opponents of the measure had been given opportunity to be heard, and he urged the immediate consideration of the measure. Senator Smoot refused to yield, and the bill went over.