Religious Liberty Work in Oregon by W. F. Martin

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Mar 23, 1911

Religious Liberty Work in Oregon

By W. F. Martin

THE readers of the REVIEW will perhaps remember that two years ago a strong effort was made to force a Sunday bill through the Oregon Legislature. A large delegation of ministers went from Portland, and joined with the Salem ministers, urging the passage of the bill. They failed to accomplish their purpose, but declared their intention of trying again in 1911. Soon after the convening of the legislature, the writer went to Salem to look after the church work there, and watch developments in the State legislature. Before the legislature convened, I wrote to local members of the senate and house, apprising them of the contemplated move on the part of the churches, and asking them to give some thought to the matter. Many of them wrote me very courteous replies, a number frankly saying they would oppose such a move. The magazine Liberty had been going to the members of the legislature, and it had a great influence in creating a sentiment against religious laws.

No Sunday bill appeared this year till the session was more than half over. The first notice I had of it was an editorial in the Pacific Christian Advocate, upbraiding me for consorting with theater managers, saloon-keepers, and “other reprehensible characters,” in trying to overthrow the work that the churches were trying to build up. My letter to the legislators fell into the hands of the Oregonian, and was published by them. This paper and other large dailies gave considerable space to a discussion of the merits of Sunday legislation, and several times mentioned my opposition to it. This was what called forth the editorial in the Advocate. When the Sunday bill appeared, it was aimed at drug-stores, groceries, and Sunday excursions. Theaters this year were exempted. In order for a merchant to escape the penalties, the bill decreed that he must be a member of a religious society that observed some other day than Sunday as its day of worship. This showed the religious character of the bill.

Again ministers came to lobby for the bill, among them Mr. Tufts. I went before the committee, and presented my arguments against the measure. It was presented to the house the following day, with a recommendation that it should not pass. The framer of the bill made a plea for it, and the chairman of the committee on revision of laws, to which the bill had been referred, in a fine speech defended the recommendation of the committee. He told the house plainly he considered the bill a step toward a union of church and state; spoke of the division in the Christian world over the Sabbath question; and said to pass such a bill would be legislating on a disputed religious question. A vote was then taken, and the bill was killed, with only two votes in its favor. A strong effort was made to have the bill reconsidered, but the committee as well as the speaker of the house would not hear to it.

Thus another religio-political measure has failed in Oregon. There is talk now of initiating the measure, and having the people of the State vote on it. We shall watch this move with much interest. We thank the Lord for his sustaining hand thus far; the battle is his.

W. F. MARTIN.