Sunday-Law Hearing in Maine

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Feb 25, 1909

Sunday-Law Hearing in Maine

[The recent hearing before a joint committee of the legislature of the State of Maine on a proposed Sunday law for that State was an interesting occasion. The hearing was attended by Brethren C. S. Longacre, S. J. Hersum, George W. Whitney, and W. O. Howe. The committee consisted of fifteen members, picked lawyers of both branches of the legislature. From a letter written by Brother Longacre to the chairman of the Religious Liberty Bureau we take the following report of the hearing.—ED.]

THERE were seven speakers in favor of the bill. The first was the game warden of the State, who introduced the measure. The second was an ex-senator, now a professor in one of the colleges of Maine. He was the spokesman for the clergy, and a very able speaker. In closing, he hurled some thunderbolts at Seventh-day Adventists, saying, with all the scorn he could put into his expressions: “I know that there are some here to-day who keep the seventh day for Sunday. They are an insignificant sect, who think that the seventh day is Sunday. They will speak after I am through, and they will tell you that we have the wrong day. But who knows which is the right day? Who knows how often the day has been lost since the days of Moses? But these people who keep Saturday for Sunday seem to know all about it, and they have a certain day all fenced in; but then that matter has been settled long ago by at least the good people of Maine. The consensus of opinion of the great majority of the best people of this commonwealth

is that the day to be kept is more Sunday, and that day is established by law. But then these people are never satisfied unless they can die martyrs. They court martyrdom, much like Roger Williams. If they want to be fools enough to set their consciences against the consciences of the great majority, they certainly must take the consequences. They pretend to be very meek and modest and pious, and if they would rather shed their blood, let them shed it. Let them burn at the stake. I will gladly gather up their ashes and float them down on the bosom of the river. Most cheerfully I will accord them the honor, and write somewhere with my own hand their epitaph, that they died ‘martyrs.’”

When my turn came, I spoke of the sacred rights of conscience, of how these rights had been trampled upon by the nations of the past, and of how sacredly the fundamental laws of this republic protected these rights—that this was the pride of American patriotism and ideas. I then referred to the ex-senator’s attack, as follows: “Gentlemen, the ex-senator said in your presence here to-day that the minority are not entitled to the rights of conscience, thus giving to the majority in religious matters a legitimate right to trample under their feet the consciences of the minority; moreover, that he would delight to see me and the small sect that I represent burn at the stake, and to float our ashes down the river. Gentlemen, that man is guilty of all the righteous blood that has been shed from Abel down to the present generation. If he is right, then the Jews and the Romans were perfectly justified in putting Christ to death. If he is right, then the millions of martyrs of the medieval times deserved to be put to death; then the Mohammedans, who outnumber the Christians by two hundred thousand, would be perfectly justified in slaying all Sunday observers because they do not keep Friday for Sunday. He also said that we were unpatriotic because we were opposed to existing laws. But, gentlemen, did you ever hear a more unpatriotic, un-American, and unchristian statement come from an American citizen than the ex-senator allowed to come from his lips? I think it was an awful statement to make in the presence of a lawmaking body. He wishes me and my people harm because we dare to be true to our consciences. I do not wish him nor any one any personal harm; yet I do say that a man who will step before a lawmaking body and utter language that is so unpatriotic, so utterly subversive of the fundamental laws upon which our American institutions and government are founded, so utterly hostile to the American idea of civil and religious liberty to all its subjects alike; I repeat, I wish him no personal harm; but such a man ought to weep and repent in sackcloth and ashes until the public feel justified in forgiving such an unkind and unpatriotic expression.” The audience applauded till the chairman called for order.

There were four ministers who spoke in favor of the bill. It was amusing to listen to their flimsy arguments. They had nothing new in stock, and so they repeated the same old arguments. They told how hard it was to get away from the old tradition of the New England sanctity of the sabbath, and how the Lord was sending judgments upon the violators of Sunday by causing many more accidents to happen on Sunday than on any other day. They told how the very best and most religious people of Maine would be grossly offended if they did not pass this proposed law, and how they would incur God’s displeasure.

One of the senators opened the opposition to the bill. He made a very able speech against all Sunday legislation, showing plainly that it was an infringement upon the consciences of the Seventh-day Adventists and others, and that it was a heathen institution which they were grafting by law upon the Christian religion. He gave a brief history of the Sunday laws from the days of Constantin[e]. He told them that it was not the right Sabbath day; that the right day was the seventh and not the first. After he had finished his address, he said, “I do not know why I said what I have said.” He stated that he helped to defeat a Sunday bill two years ago, when it was referred to the judiciary committee, of which he was a member, and he did not know why one should be brought forward again.

Mr. Franklin D. Cummings, of Portland, a staunch friend and champion of religious liberty, made a very able speech against the bill on constitutional grounds. I followed him, and spoke for about an hour. They asked me many questions, and the Lord certainly did help me in speaking and in answering their questions. I do not remember when I had greater freedom and power in speaking. I spoke on the fundamental principles, the historical evidences, and the present-day workings of the Sunday laws, and held their attention for an hour.

Brother Howe and I sat up the night before, drawing up the Memorial, which Brother Howe read and presented to the committee. It seemed to make a good impression.

The bill was further opposed by Elder Hersum and Brother Whitney. When the time came for the rebuttal, there was not a voice raised against us. They were completely silenced, or were afraid that more truth would be developed when our time would come to put in our rebuttal.

No doubt you will be interested in the questions they asked me. The Lord helped me in answering the questions without any hesitation, and the answers seemed to convince them that my positions were sound. The following questions came in quick succession:—

Would you favor some other day? Do you claim that the legislature has no right to compel you to rest on any day? Do you believe in no law at all in behalf of Sunday observance? Do you not believe the majority ought to rule? Do you not believe that improper conduct ought to be punished on Sunday? Do you not believe that the courts have the province to define what a crime is? Would you favor this bill if its title was changed? How would you word the bill in order to make it proper for legislation? Would not an exemption clause meet your desires? Are you aware of the fact that far more stringent laws are already on the statute-books? Why do you argue against a milder form of law then? What do you think we ought to do with the present Sunday laws on the books? Do you not believe in obeying existing laws? Do you believe the people of Maine are dangerous? Do you believe in the ten commandments? Do you believe that it is proper to legislate upon stealing? Why is it proper to legislate on one commandment and not upon another? Is not stealing a sin against God also? In which States did you say that the supreme courts repealed the Sunday laws? What do you think would be the moral effect upon the community if all the Sunday laws should be abolished?

After the hearing, four members of the committee told me that they had been in favor of the bill, but were now opposed to it. Nearly all the members of the committee told me that they had enjoyed the hearing, and appreciated the good points that had been made in opposition to the bill. The senator who asked me nearly all the questions came to me after the hearing and told me that he did not want me to think he was hostile to me because he asked the questions he did; but that he wanted me to canvass the whole subject, and desired to draw out all the information he could. He said, “It is information that we are after.” The chairman of the committee told me that he was almost certain that the bill would die in the committee.

I feel that the Lord gave us this opportunity of presenting the truth to this legislative body in an effectual way, and I am confident that some good will result from this besides the mere defeat of another Sunday bill.