p. 19 | Sunday Legislation Defeated in North Carolina

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Tacoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · May 27, 1915

Sunday Legislation Defeated in North Carolina

By J. H. Behrens

THERE are at present no less than twelve Sunday laws on our statute books, covering almost every phase of human activity and having penalties for their transgression ranging all the way from one dollar to five hundred dollars, and as much as twelve months' imprisonment for their violation.

Notwithstanding this, the eastern and western conferences of the Methodist Church took action at their last official session in 1914 to petition the legislature to pass another Sunday law more stringent than the ones now in force, and appointed one of their regular ministers stationed at Raleigh to appear before the legislature in favor of such a measure.

No less than four bills were drafted and came up in various ways in connection with the last legislature. The origin of the first one was in a law office in Wilmington, at the request of one of the regular ministers of the place, and was forwarded to their representative at Raleigh and introduced by him in the house, and was known as House Bill 643.

This was a very drastic measure covering all trades, occupations, and business. The penalty for violation of this law was from ten to fifty dollars. The bill was referred to the committee; but before the hearing was held, a substitute was drafted. This was much milder than the original bill, having a number of exemptions and provisions allowing certain classes of labor, while other lines were restrained. Both these measures were reported unfavorably by the committee.

It was reported that the ministers felt very much disappointed at the failure of these bills in the house, so a third bill was introduced in the senate, known as Senate Bill 622. When the hearing was held before the committee, the arguments in favor of this proposed Sunday law were: “That the reverence and respect for the day be preserved;” “that the trepidations and sanctity of the Sabbath might be preserved;” “to make it possible for the young people to attend Sunday school;” “to save the day from the spirit of the European Sunday so dominant in the West and North and for which Europe is now suffering.” Having had opportunity to study the bill, I presented arguments against it, which were evidently new to most of those present, and which were received with marked attention.

A sermon preached the following Sunday by one of the pastors of Raleigh, who was the principal speaker for the bill before the committee, the Raleigh News and Observer reported as follows:—

“No man is forced to live in North Carolina; and if he doesn’t like the way we do things in this grand old commonwealth, let him seek greener pastures and seek his own level. No man has a right to tear down our standards of life and sanctity. If that be bigotry, make the most of it.”

“Love of money has caused men to invent ways and means by which they want to educate the people away from holy thinking and living to pleasure loving and self-gratification—parks with so-called sacred concerts, Sunday excursions taking people away from little Sunday schools to the Sunday picnics by the sea. . . . We do not want union of state and church, but we ask that the church in its difficult work be unhampered.”

I need not comment on the above quotation, as it speaks for itself very plainly, and voices the sentiment of all Sunday law advocates. We may be sure that when these reformers finally attain their desired object, those who observe another day as the Sabbath may prepare to “seek greener pastures.”

At the close of the hearing, a committee was appointed to make certain changes in the bill and report them to the senate. When it finally came forth from their hands, it had no less than nine exemptions, which in themselves branded it as class legislation. It was reported to the senate for its first hearing and was placed upon the calendar; but it received no further consideration, and consequently is dead.

It was evident from the arguments before the committee and from personal conversation with friends of the measure that almost anything would be acceptable, just so it was a Sunday law of some kind.

We wish to thank the Lord for the providential way in which the matter was disposed of, and also our brethren and sisters in the conference, who, by their prayers and by their letters of encouragement, shared in this good work. One thing is very evident, and that is that we must educate the minds of those who are in positions of responsibility in the principles of true liberty, both civil and religious. J. H. BEHRENS.