The Johnston Sunday Bill in the United States Senate
By W. W. P.
The Johnston Sunday bill, with whose provisions our readers are more or less familiar, occupied the attention of the United States Senate for over an hour on Wednesday, January 26. When the bill was called up on that day for the third time, the request was made to let it “go over;” but Senator Johnston, who was in charge of the bill, objected, and on his motion the Senate proceeded to consider the bill. The discussion took quite a wide range, and was participated in by several senators. The quotations which follow are taken from the official report in the Congressional Record. In answer to an inquiry, it was stated both by Senator Johnston and Senator Gallinger, chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia, that there is no Sunday law in the District. Senator Paynter of Kentucky stated that “the employees of barber shops desired that the shops should be closed on Sunday because they did not want to work on that day; they wanted it as a day of rest. If the law required that the shops should be closed on Sunday, then the proprietors could not ask them to work on that day.” In reply to this Senator Bailey of Texas took this ground: “I am not disposed to allow any class of people to come to legislative assemblies of the country to settle controversies between them and their employees. I certainly would not insist that a barber ought to work if he does not want to work. . . . So far as I am concerned, I am not disposed to allow any class to come and ask for a law that interferes with some man who wants to pursue his calling, simply because some other man does not want to pursue it.” If this sound principle enunciated by Senator Bailey should be followed, it would prevent the enactment of many of the Sunday laws now demanded by the representatives of different trade-unions. In the early part of the discussion, Senator Heyburn of Idaho said:— “I believe in the observance of the Sabbath day, but I object to the proviso in this bill. I object to legislative discrimination between the moral code of different men. If this is a day of rest, a Christian of the standard type or a Seventh-day Adventist can agree upon the day that shall be observed as a day of rest, but when you inject into a bill, in the proviso, the religious principle, then I say it is not a proper subject for legislation at all. . . . “I do not want the pill sugar-coated. If we are going to vote upon religious discrimination, I want it stated fairly and candidly that that is the basis of our judgment and our vote. If it is merely that the world may stand at rest for a day, regardless of religious principle, well and good. Let us do it. “I try to observe the Sabbath in a proper manner; I would not see the wheels of industry move every day in the year. I believe in a day of rest, but on principle. I am not a Seventh-day Adventist on principle. I do not believe in recognizing this class of legislation as being a legitimate consideration for Congress. . . . “If men are to act upon their conscience in the performance of the deeds of good citizenship, let it rest in their conscience. If we want a universal day of rest, let us eliminate all attempt to recognize the difference between religious creeds and say that the seventh day of the week shall be a day of rest, and let everybody conform to it.” Following him, Senator Dixon of Montana, spoke at some length:— “I certainly am in favor of keeping one day of the week as a day of rest and recreation and for the purpose of religious worship, if the individual so desires. But what is the real purpose behind this bill? Is it to apply a religious test in the District of Columbia? If that is the purpose of the bill, then the trimmings permitting the sale of fruit, newspapers, confectionery, cigars, and other things ought to be cut out of it. If there is going to be a religious test applied in the capital of the United States, then the bill should so specify, and cut out many of the exemptions that are in it. If it is not a religious test, then there is no occasion for the passage of this kind of a law in the capital of this great republic. “I think, in a republican form of government, one of the most dangerous programs that legislatures can enter upon is anything looking toward the establishment of a religious test through a court of law. “I think there is an exemption in this bill in favor, possibly, of Seventh-day Adventists and Jews, but in some way or other the bill provides that those persons whose conscience impels them to keep another day than Sunday in order to keep within the provisions of the bill must be members of a religious body. Suppose they are converts to one of these different kinds of religion and believe Saturday is the legitimate Sunday, as usually interpreted, are they to be convicted under this bill because they have not affiliated and joined some other religious society? . . . “I do think, Mr. President, before this bill is put on its final passage that it should be better considered than apparently it has been up to this time. I know that the great cry in this country among certain classes of citizens is for Sunday observance. If this bill is to provide a day of recreation and rest, then it is legitimate; but if it is to apply a religious test in this great republic, it is a very dangerous proceeding, and, notwithstanding the popularity that will attend the support of this bill as it now stands, I think the Senate of the United States ought to pause and well consider the proposition.” Senator Bailey of Texas, while favoring the bill, made a significant statement concerning its origin. Referring to those who were demanding the legislation, he said: “All they ask—and they do not ask it as religionists, although many of them probably would never have thought about the matter except in that way—but as good citizens, all they ask is a sensible police regulation.” It is worthy of note in this connection that the ministers of the various denominations in the city of Washington who are earnestly urging the passage of this legislation do not appear to be at all concerned about any other “police regulation,” and it is impossible to avoid the conviction that their interest in this particular case is really in behalf of the Sunday institution, and not merely in behalf of the peace and dignity of the state. The following interesting dialogue is quoted verbatim from the Record:— “Mr. Heyburn.—The State of Idaho has a Sunday-observance law. I thoroughly approve of a law for the observance of a day of rest, and I select the Sabbath as that day. “Mr. Bailey.—Because most people observe it? “Mr. Heyburn.—Yes. I attend and participate in religious exercises on that day, but if we select that day for one, let us select it for all. This bill excepts the Jews. “Mr. Bailey.—And so it ought. “Mr. Heyburn.—And the Seventh-day Adventists. “Mr. Bailey.—That is also right. “Mr. Heyburn.—They are excepted on what ground? On the ground of religious conscience? “Mr. Bailey.—Upon the ground that their conscience instructs them to observe another day, and if they observe that day as a day of rest, they need not observe this day. If the law made no such exception as that, it would simply mean that the Jew who observes Saturday and closes his place of business, must then follow it with the observance of Sunday and close his place of business for a second day of the week instead of for a single day, as men of our faith do. . . . “Mr. Heyburn.—I would not like to be put in a position where it might be even inferred that I had expressed myself in favor of discrimination against either the Seventh-day Adventists or the Jews. If you put it on a religious basis, that would be true, and, putting it on a religious basis, I would not vote for the measure; but putting it on the basis of a day of rest and a police measure, as the senator has suggested, then there is no discrimination against anybody. “Mr. Bailey.—And the very fact that the bill allows men compelled by religious conviction to observe one day rather than another is a plain effort to avoid religious discrimination. It simply allows a man to rest that day which his conscience selects. But the law still says he must rest one day in seven. “Mr. Bailey.—I think it is a very sensible police regulation. “Mr. Dixon.—Will the senator allow me to ask him a question?” “Mr. Dixon.—As the bill now stands, the only way the Jew, or the Seventh-day Adventist, and other people who believe in observing another day in the week than Sunday for rest and religious enjoyment can take advantage of it is to prove their membership in some such religious body. “Mr. Bailey.—I think the senator’s suggestion is a very sensible one. The senator from Kentucky [Mr. Paynter] has already expressed to me an opinion that the bill could be worded in that respect more in consonance with the views which I assume all senators entertain. I think a man whose conscience requires him to observe one day rather than another ought to be protected, though he may not be a member of any religious organization or society; and I imagine from what the senator from Kentucky has already said to me that he intends to propose an amendment of that kind.” Senator Money of Mississippi, the leader of the minority, then took up the discussion. He said in part:— “Mr. President, this is a Christian nation, and not a Christian government.21That is forbidden by the Constitution. Jew or Gentile, Mohammedan or Brahman, has a right to his own religious convictions. There is nothing in this bill about religious observance. It is an effort to secure a day of rest; and there can not be a half dozen days of rest by law. If we respect Saturday as the Sabbath of the Jews and the Seventh-day Adventists, we must respect Friday as the day of the Mussulman; and I do not know how many African tribes have Thursday or Wednesday or Monday for their only day. This is simply an effort to secure one day out of seven for rest, and if anybody considers Saturday as the Sabbath—and undoubtedly it is the Sabbath, and not Sunday—he of course can rest that day, if he chooses. “But it will not do, in my opinion, to complicate the difficulties of the execution of this proposed law by permitting a man who does observe Saturday on his motion to violate Sunday on his own motion because he observes another day. We are securing a day of rest for all, and if he wants two days, he can take them. Certainly, I think, you will find difficulty in closing up one house of business and allowing another alongside to keep open because the first was closed the day before. It is the difficulty of executing the law. “I wish to say further, while we are not authorized to legislate about religious observances of any sort or to make holy days of any sort, yet Congress can legislate in respect to the general public opinion. It ought to defer to the general public opinion, and the general public opinion in the United States is that Sunday is a day of rest, and in obedience to that general opinion we propose this legislation. Whether it is better for a people to rest one day or not, to rest one day is a question which is easily answered. If a man wants to prosecute his profession for a certain time on that day, as has been provided for by the senator from Alabama in his bill, he can do so. “If his conscience dictates that he must not work, he can close his shop. Nobody can compel a man to work on Sunday. Neither can the law compel him to work any other day in the week, but it can say that on a certain day or on a certain part of a day no work shall be done. Why?—First because of the economic principle that every man ought to rest one day in the week, and probably two. Secondly, because there is a deference paid by the great body of the people to the sanctity of that day. . . . “I am not in favor of the blue-laws of Connecticut or the old kirk of Scotland regulations, and the trouble about these reform movements is that they never stop at the point which was intended by the beginners. It is like the prohibition movement which swept over the country. The way to hell is paved with good intentions. When you get reforms in the hands of reformers, they are generally emotional people with small development of the rational faculty, and prompted by their repeated successes, they go from one reform to another, and it is proposed that one shall attend church on Sunday; then a particular church; then a constable is permitted to invade one’s home, if he does not attend church, to see whether or not he is sick; then one can not kiss his wife on Sunday. The beginnings of these things are very innocent. “I shall vote for this measure, but I do not want any sacred concert on Sunday, unless it is free, any more than any other concert. I might say that there should be no sermons unless they were free, but I will not say that, because Sunday is the preacher’s day, the day on which he earns his salary. I have no objections to pew rents and all that sort of thing, but it does seem to me, if we are going to set aside a day of rest, it ought to be a day of rest for everybody, and we should not have the incongruity of having half the stores on F Street and Pennsylvania Avenue open on Sunday because our Jewish friends see fit to observe the preceding day.” Senator Tillman of South Carolina desired to know whether the senators were going to punish themselves for holding a session of the Senate on Sunday. Senator Cummins of Iowa asked “whether, with all due regard to the difference of religious opinions with respect to the observance of one day in the week, we ought to permit a Jew to run a theater on Sunday if an American can not run a theater on Sunday, or whether a Seventh-day Adventist should be permitted to run a baseball game on Sunday, if a Presbyterian, as I am, can not run a baseball game on Sunday?” In reply Senator Clapp of Minnesota said that he did not think “either a Jew or a Seventh-day Adventist could conduct such amusements on Sunday.” Various changes in the bill were suggested, and a desire was expressed to have the bill recommitted for further consideration, but both Senators Gallinger and Johnston objected to recommitment. The remainder of the discussion had no special bearing upon the merits of the proposed legislation, and after an ineffectual attempt to secure further time for the passage of the bill, it was allowed to lie over until the following day for action. When the bill was taken up again on Thursday, Senator Johnston proposed an amendment which was agreed to, changing the exemption clause to read as follows:— “That persons who observed as a Sabbath another day in the week than Sunday shall not be held to have violated the provisions of this section if they observe as a Sabbath one day in each seven, as herein provided.” Further amendments were offered by Senator Johnston and agreed to, permitting the sale of tobacco, and increasing the penalty to a fine of not more than $30, or to imprisonment for not more than thirty days. After some technical discussion relating to the provision for the use of private conveyances, Senator Smoot of Idaho proposed an amendment which was agreed to, to strike out the word “Sabbath” in the exemption clause and to insert in its place the words “day of rest” so that the clause would read as follows:— “That persons who observed as a day of rest another day in the week than Sunday, shall not be held to have violated the provisions of this section if they observe as a day of rest one day in each seven, as herein provided.” After this amendment was agreed to, Senator Dixon of Montana spoke as follows:— “Mr. President, the bill as now perfected provides that it shall be unlawful for any person on the first day of the week to labor at any of the trades or callings therein specified, provided, however, that if on any other day of the week, he takes one day of rest he shall not be liable for the penalties. In other words, if a man works all the week and lays off on Sunday—a barber or a plumber or a carpenter—and then on Sunday chooses to work, in order to avoid the penalty of the bill as it now stands all he has to do in a court of justice is to prove to the court that on Tuesday he lays off from his work and rests. In all seriousness, I want to ask the senator from Alabama [Mr. Johnston] and the chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia [Mr. Gallinger] whether the provisions of the bill which we are now about to pass must not be construed in this way?” To this inquiry Senator Gallinger made the following reply:— “Mr. President, for myself I would say that I think the senator’s point is well taken. Had I been in charge of the bill I would not have accepted the amendment offered by the senator from Utah, Mr. Smoot, because I think the word ‘Sabbath’ ought to remain in the bill.” The bill was then passed, many senators in the meantime having left the chamber, and the vote upon the bill being merely formal. In their report of the passage of the bill, the Washington papers expressed the belief that the amendment made by Senator Smoot had so changed the intent of the promoters of the bill, that as it now stands, it is far from satisfactory, in that it does not really require the observance of Sunday by any one. It remains to be seen whether the claim that there was no religion in this bill, and that it was merely to secure a day of rest for working men was sincere, or whether further effort will be made to induce the Senate to pass what has been so long desired—a law requiring the observance of Sunday in the District of Columbia. The Johnston bill as passed by the Senate will now go to the House for consideration, where it will doubtless encounter serious opposition, even in its present form. W. W. P.