Proposed Sabbath Observance Law by Congress
By S. B. Horton
Among the first bills introduced into the Sixty-second Congress, now in extra session, was Senate 237, by Senator Johnston, of Alabama, providing for sabbath observance in the District of Columbia. The title of the bill provides “for the proper observance of Sunday as a day of rest in the District of Columbia,” and in this respect is the same as the bill (S. 404) which passed the Senate of the Sixty-first Congress, but failed in the House. But if there is any doubt as to the religious intent of the present measure, it may be readily removed by an appeal to the phraseology of the bill itself. We are therefore giving in full the proposed law now in Congress, putting in black type the religious proviso:— “62D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION “IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES “MR. JOHNSTON of Alabama introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia. “For the proper observance of Sunday as a day of rest in the District of Columbia. “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be unlawful for any person or corporation in the District of Columbia on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, to labor at any trade or calling, or to employ or cause to be employed his apprentice or servant in any labor or business, except in household work or other work of necessity or charity, and except also newspaper publishers and their employees, and except also public-service corporations and their employees, in the necessary supplying of service to the people of the District: “Provided, 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. “Sec. 2. That it shall be unlawful for any person in said District on said day to engage in any circus, show, or theatrical performance: Provided, That the provisions of this Act shall not be construed so as to prohibit sacred concerts, nor the regular business of hotels and restaurants on said day; nor to the delivery of articles of food, including meats, at any time before ten o’clock in the morning of said day from June first to October first; nor to the sale of milk,18fruit, confectionery, ice, soda and mineral waters, newspapers, periodicals, cigars, drugs, medicines, and surgical appliances; nor to the business of livery stables, or other public or the use of private conveyances; nor to the handling and operation of the United States mail. “Sec. 3. That any person or corporation who shall violate the provisions of this Act shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than ten dollars, or by imprisonment in the jail of the District of Columbia for not more than ten days, or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. “Sec. 4. That all prosecutions for violations of this Act shall be in the police courts of the District of Columbia and in the name of the District.” It will be remembered that the proviso of the bill which died with the last Congress (S. 404), read as follows:— “Provided, That persons who observe as a day of rest any other day in the week than Sunday shall not be held to have violated the provision of this section if they observe as a day of rest one day in each seven, as herein provided.” It is perfectly plain upon its face that Sabbath observance is “herein provided” in the bill introduced by the senator from Alabama, and it should require no argument to substantiate this claim. On the other hand, it will require much argument of specious character to convince the fair-minded student that religion is not the basis for this legislation. Appearing in the legislative arena before the appointments of committees, this bill indicates that the friends of compulsory Sunday observance by our national lawmaking body are determined to commit Congress to religious legislation. It has been referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, where first official consideration will be given the matter. In the meantime the American people should give consideration to the question involved in this legislation. Do the people of the United States wish Congress to regulate their religious observance of days? or should Congress be advised to stand by the work of our forefathers in regard to absolute separation of church and state? For one hundred years the predecessors of the Sixty-second Congress held to the view that the passing of Sunday laws by Congress is violative of the spirit of freedom and liberty, and in direct contravention to the First Amendment to the Constitution, which stands as an insuperable barrier to such legislation. Is there not some way by which the letter and the spirit of the statement, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” can be thoroughly impressed upon the minds of our misguided religio-political fellow citizens, so that those in charge of civil affairs may be left free to discharge their obligation to the body politic? Or will Congress yield to the importunate demands of the church party for a compulsory Sunday-observance law, and thus say, Constitution or no Constitution, we will place Cæsar’s sword in the hands of the church? It is to be hoped that there still remain in American breasts some of the principles which actuated our forebears to build a nation in behalf of freedom and civil righteousness. It was this principle which caused the Alabama Legislature, in 1830, to pass a joint resolution, which was communicated to the United States Senate, Jan. 22, 1831, as follows:— “Whereas, Much excitement exists, and deep interest is felt in many parts of the United States, in consequence of the powerful exertions which have been made, and are still making [italics ours] to prevent the transportation of the mail on Sunday; and whereas, also, the rights and opinions of every religious sect, whether they observe the Christian sabbath or not, are equally entitled to the respect and protection of the government; and whereas, also, it is thought proper and expedient that the legislature of this State should express their opinion on this important and interesting subject, as it is confidently anticipated this measure will again be brought by its friends before the present Congress of the United States; therefore,— “Be it resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Alabama in General Assembly convened, That the transportation of the mail on Sunday is of vital importance to the welfare and prosperity of the Union; and that its suspension on that day would be a violation of the spirit of the Constitution, and be repugnant to the principles of a free government. “Be it further resolved, That the sentiment expressed in the report of the committee at the last session of Congress, in opposition to the suspension of the mail on Sunday, is entitled to the highest consideration of the friends of the Constitution, and every lover of civil and political freedom. “And be it further resolved, That our senators in Congress be instructed, and our representatives requested, to use their exertions in opposition to any measure that may tend to retard the transportation of the mail.” This joint resolution was signed by James Penn, speaker of the House of Representatives; Samuel B. Moore, president of the Senate; and Gabriel Moore. It was approved Dec. 31, 1830. While this Alabama document has reference to the transportation of the mails on Sunday, still the same principle is involved in Senate Bill 237, and it should go the way all previous Sunday bills have gone for a hundred years.