The Hearing on the Johnston Sunday Bill
By W. W. P.
A PARTIAL report of this hearing appeared last week, including a summary of the arguments presented by the editor of the Review, and W. A. Colcord, secretary of the Religious Liberty Bureau. Mr. H. C. Kirk, president of the Secular League of Washington, spoke in opposition to the bill, his chief reasons for his attitude being these:— “We are opposed to this legislation, first, on the ground that where any social difficulty can be remedied without the passage of a law, it is better to accomplish17it in that way than to enact legislation.” “The character of this bill, as tending to create new crimes and criminals, is self-condemnatory.” “There is more than that, however. The question of whether a man is a criminal or not is made to turn upon such fine distinctions.” “Now, there are multitudinous reasons that could be urged against the passage of this bill. Can anybody doubt that it is really—while ostensibly an economic measure and presented as such—in the nature of Sunday legislation, and as such is contrary to the spirit and letter of the Constitution of the United States?” John N. Quinn, of Takoma Park, who had been delegated by the employees of the Review and Herald Office to represent them before the committee, gave the following reasons for his opposition to the bill:— “1. The working man can secure a weekly day of rest without legislation by civil government. “2. Working men are not agreed either as to the method of securing a weekly rest day or as to the day itself. “3. The proposed legislation is an acknowledgment of a lack of conscientious conviction. “4. The working man will not be permitted to exercise his right to decide how he shall observe the day. “5. It is religious as well as class legislation, and takes issue in a religious controversy.” “6. It places a ‘big stick’ in the hands of bigots. “7. The spirit behind the movement is one of intolerance and persecution. “8. To secure the weekly rest day by civil enactment is to do so illegitimately. “9. The ultimate of Sunday enforcement will be disaster to religion, the state, and the working man.” The next fifteen minutes were occupied by A. T. Jones, of Michigan, in an earnest argument against the proposed legislation. He first gave a sketch of Sunday legislation from the time of Constantine to the present, showing that all Sunday legislation in the United States could be traced through the laws of the colonies and through the laws of England, to their original source in the Roman laws at the time when there was the closest union between church and state. In discussing the exemption clause in the bill, he declared:— “By the Constitution of the United States and by the divine religion, which is Christianity, every individual has a divine right, and also a constitutional right, to be religious without belonging to any combination or society in any way whatever.” “This bill, then, plainly requires of all people that they must either observe Sunday as dictated by the state, from the church, or else by edict of the state he must be a ‘member of a religious society.’” “Gentlemen of the Committee: The conclusion of the whole matter, the sum of all that can be said, is that this legislation would doubly revolutionize this whole nation. First, in that, being essentially religious, it commits the nation to the old order of things,—governmental domination of religion and in religion. Secondly, in that it sweeps away absolutely and forevermore all right of individuality in religion. And in this double revolutionizing of things here, it is doubly unconstitutional and doubly antichristian.” The next speaker was G. B. Thompson, who said, in part:— “We are told that the reason we are here opposing this bill, Mr. Chairman, is because we keep another day than Sunday. Now, I want to say that we would be opposed to any law that would require anybody to keep the seventh day. We oppose this thing from principle; because the government of this nation has no right to legislate concerning Sunday, the true Sabbath, or any other day. It is not proper for the state to legislate upon this question. “Many of the promoters of this bill claim that they do not want religious legislation; that all they want is a civil observance of the day. Now, gentlemen, any law that will keep a man civil on Saturday or on Tuesday will keep him civil on Sunday. We have laws in the District of Columbia that require every man to be civil seven days in the week. Isn’t that all that is necessary to make a man civil on Sunday?” At this juncture petitions against the passage of the bill were presented by W. A. Colcord, secretary of the Religious Liberty Bureau, as follows:— Two hundred fifty-three petitions from the various States, containing 10,062 signatures. Eighty-six petitions from the District of Columbia, containing 1,321 signatures. Three memorials signed by sixty merchants of the District. Independent Citizens’ Union of Maryland, 10,000 members. Camp Six of Patriotic Order of Sons of America, 346 members. One petition from California, addressed to Hon. J. C. Needham, containing 108 signatures. Total, 345 petitions; 22,797 signatures. There was also presented the following resolution, adopted the previous day:— “Resolved, That the District of Columbia Conference of Seventh-day Adventists enters its most earnest protest against the passage of the Johnston Sunday bill now before the District Committee of the House of Representatives.” Mr. W. H. Rapley, manager of the New National Theater, and associate manager of the Academy of Music, opposed the bill on the ground that there was already sufficient legislation to meet all requirements. K. C. Russell, chairman of the Religious Liberty Bureau, presented the next argument against the bill, giving a variety of reasons for his opposition:— “1. Because should Congress pass this bill and it become a law, the national government would then be departing from the exalted position it has so long maintained on the principle of a total separation between the church and the state.” “2. Because it makes religion a test for a certain class of citizens, in order to be exempt from the penalties of the law; for the bill plainly states that the citizens who are exempted must be members of a religious society.” “3. Because, should the bill become law, it would necessitate that the judge of the police court of the District of Columbia should assume the position of a bishop or moderator in an ecclesiastical tribunal.” “4. Because it is a species of class legislation, based upon a selfish principle.” “5. This bill compels a man to rest on Sunday whether he wishes to or not.” “6. I am opposed to this measure because it would be allowing the majority to control the minority in matters of a religious character.” As illustrating the practical workings of Sunday laws, the following facts were stated:— “From 1885 to 1896, as the result of the enforcement of Sunday laws, over one hundred Seventh-day Adventists in the United States were prosecuted for quiet work performed on the first day of the week, resulting in fines and costs amounting to $2,269.69, and imprisonment totaling 1,438 days, and 455 days served in chain-gangs.” By the courtesy of the opponents of the bill, time was granted to some of those present who desired to speak in favor of the measure. Mr. E. Hilton Jackson, an attorney, claimed that the Supreme Court of the United States had recognized the constitutionality of State laws relating to the observance of Sunday, on the ground that they were a legitimate exercise of the police power of the State. He read an extract from a court decision which he claimed sustained his contention. In reply to his challenge calling for a decision of the federal court in favor of the position taken by those who opposed the bill, A. T. Jones stated that inasmuch as there was no federal Sunday law, there could be no federal decision upon the question, and for that reason it was impossible to produce one. He declared that Congress was prohibited from establishing religion, by the First Amendment; but at the very time when this amendment was adopted, every State, except one, already had an establishment of religion. So far as the United States Constitution is concerned, it would be possible for any State to establish religion by law, and to inflict the most severe punishment upon heretics. Mr. Charles F. Diggs appeared as the attorney of one of the clerks’ associations of Washington, and urged the passage of the bill in the interests of his clients. He claimed that there was nothing religious in the bill, and seemed to resent the fact that it should be opposed on religious grounds. In his replies, however, to some questions propounded to him, he inadvertently made very clear the real nature of the bill, and his own ideas concerning compulsory observance of Sunday. When asked, “What would you do with a man who does not observe any day?” he said, “I would make him observe the day which the law says.” One member of the committee having stated that “the only object of this law is to make a man keep one day in the week, and it makes him do that by law instead of by love,”18Mr. Diggs acknowledged that this was the case with all Sunday laws, by saying, “That is the same thing that every statute throughout the country does.” Being asked if the association which he represented could not protect their members, by adopting certain regulations, Mr. Diggs replied: “So far as the members of our association are concerned, I suppose our members could; but you can bind them much better if you have an act.” To this a member of the committee added, “You can create an abuse much better, too.” Mr. King, the president of the Georgetown Citizens’ Association, urged the passage of the bill in behalf of some of the residents of Georgetown, but introduced no argument of any weight. His chief plea was that unless all stores were closed on Sunday, those who did close would suffer the loss of their trade, which would be likely to be transferred to the stores which kept open. Being asked whether he knew of any city in the country where Sunday was better observed than in Washington, and being pressed to a definite reply, Mr. King was obliged to say, “No, I do not know that I do,” and the member of the committee who asked the question then declared: “I would rather have a love and a respect for the Sabbath day implanted in a man’s heart than all the laws you could put on the statute-books.” When pleading for Sunday laws to prevent the importation of the Continental Sunday into America, and citing the laxness with which Sunday was observed in London as an example of what should be avoided, Mr. King was considerably nonplussed to be told that there were twenty-seven Sunday laws in force in London. Mr. F. P. B. Sands, representing the Master Butchers’ Association of the District of Columbia and its employees, was the next speaker who undertook to urge the passage of the bill. Mr. Sands was very sarcastic in his reference to the opponents of the measure, saying: “We have listened to a great many essays upon religious views of individuals representing different religious bodies.” He gave a brief outline of his hitherto unsuccessful efforts to secure the passage of the law for the benefit of his clients; and declared: “This is no religious question. I drafted the bill, and I never consulted or asked or talked with any priest of minister of any denomination.” He argued that it was “an affront to the intelligence of the committee” for the opponents of the measure to criticize the exemption clause, which, he stated, “is intended to give them all the protection they ask for under the bill.” It did not seem to dawn upon the mind of Mr. Sands that it was possible for any one to oppose this legislation because of the wrong principles involved, or that any one could have any other purpose than a selfish one, merely to avoid arrest and prosecution, in appearing against the bill. Mr. Henry I. Meader spoke in behalf of the retail grocers, stating: “We want a law here to protect those business men who do keep open, in closing on Sunday, so that they may close any day they see fit.” “We appeal to you [the committee] that you give us the proper kind of day, that we may have a day of rest.” “The Jews, and Seventh-day Adventists, and various other denominations can have their day of rest just the same as we are asking for here.” If Mr. Meader, and those whom he represented, were willing to follow the example of Seventh-day Adventists,—decide upon a day which they would observe as the Sabbath, and then observe it, without asking for a law compelling every one else to observe the same day,—there would be no occasion for further legislation, and congressional committees would not be compelled to devote any of their time to hearings upon proposed Sunday laws. Those who listened to all the arguments presented at this hearing, while convinced that a deep impression was made upon the minds of the committee by the clear and strong arguments presented against the bill, were yet of the opinion that those who appeared before the committee to urge the legislation really did as much or more to defeat it than any others. W. W. P.