Why is the Pennsylvania Sunday Blue Laws Were Not Repealed by A. R. Bell

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

Why is the Pennsylvania Sunday Blue Laws Were Not Repealed

By A. R. Bell

We have been having some interesting experiences in Pennsylvania, and the end is not yet. At a mass meeting held to protest against arrests and prosecution for Sunday selling, a resolution was passed calling upon the legislature now in session to “repeal all statutes of a religious character.” A bill was introduced by Senator Horace W. Schantz, of Lehigh County, reading, in part, as follows: That “so much of the act passed the twenty-second day of April, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four . . . as relates to the sale or delivery of the necessaries of life on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, be and the same is hereby repealed.”

This bill has stirred things. It came up for first reading, and was voted back into the committee for a hearing. Two weeks later Senator Magee, of Pittsburgh, who favored the bill, called it out of committee, and it passed second reading.

One senator told us: “I am going to vote to sustain the blue laws of Pennsylvania. They haven’t enough religion anyway. . . . I don’t care, gentlemen, what you say or what you think, I am going to vote as Dr. Mutchler asked me to vote.” Dr. Mutchler is the Lord’s Day Alliance secretary. He is in attendance at every session of the legislature of Pennsylvania. He comes the first day and stays until adjournment. Another senator told Brother Longacre if he didn’t like the way they did things in this country, to “get out of the country.” Another senator said to me: “I’m opposed to the bill. I’ll vote against any bill that will let the bars down on the Sabbath.” Another said: “I’m against the Schantz bill. I’ll never stand for any more Sabbath desecration than there is at present.”

Quite a number of senators agreed with us that we were right, and declared themselves as favoring the bill, but they said, “I cannot vote for it; my constituency would not stand for it.”

A statement was prepared, entitled “Why Senate Bill 255 Ought to Pass,” giving three reasons: first, for “legal reasons;” second, for “humanitarian reasons;” third, for “religious reasons.” A copy of this statement was mailed to the home address of each senator. Word was also immediately sent out to the members of the Religious Liberty Association to send in their petitions.

We felt that we could depend on at least twenty to vote in favor of the bill. We had talked with them, and they had expressed themselves as favoring the measure, and promised to vote for it. Others who were “on the fence” we felt would be influenced for good through the statement prepared and sent to them. But what was our surprise when the “yeas and nays” were called, to see one after another of these men who had promised to vote for the bill, vote “No.” And several senators who voted “Aye,” when they saw how the thing was going, asked to have their vote changed to “No.” There were only five senators who kept their word and voted for the bill.

The legislature refused local option because of its fear of the liquor interests; it put a Sunday bill in “cold storage,” and then refused to repeal a statute that custom and practice break every week, and which causes the people and officers of the law to lose respect and reverence for constituted authority.

A. R. BELL.