Your ShelfYour Projects

Two Sunday Bills Reported On

8%

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 30, 1913

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 90, No. 5.

Read the full edition

Two Sunday Bills Reported On

By C. E. Holmes

C. E. HOLMES
Four Sunday bills have been introduced into the present, or Sixty-second, Congress. Three of these apply specifically to the District of Columbia. Dec. 6, 1911, Representative Heflin introduced a bill (H. R. 14690) “prohibiting labor on buildings, and so forth, in the District of Columbia on the Sabbath day.” This was soon submitted to the District commissioners for their consideration. On Dec. 21, 1911, they tendered their report. It reads as follows:—
“The commissioners of the District of Columbia have the honor to state with respect to H. R. 14690 of the Sixty-second Congress, entitled ‘A bill prohibiting labor on buildings, and so forth, in the District of Columbia on the Sabbath day,’ that they know of no reasons for its enactment, and therefore recommend adverse action thereon.
“The volume and character of work carried on in the District of Columbia on Sunday is only such emergency work, building construction, street repairs, and street railway work, in which it is essential for the convenience, comfort, and safety of the public that it be done on Sundays, when traffic is at a minimum. The amount of such work is inconsiderable, and the enactment of the law which would prohibit its performance on Sunday would be detrimental to the public interest.”
This bill might seem to be very innocent and harmless to men of business who already refrain on Sunday from their usual vocations. From their viewpoint it might appear very considerate to stop building operations and railway construction on a day of worship. But the commissioners very wisely refused to recommend this measure. Had Congress passed a bill of this kind, it would have recognized and especially protected a religious institution respected by only a part of the population of the District. In this way the government would have discriminated against other citizens who do not observe Sunday.
July 10, 1912, Representative Howard, of Georgia, introduced a bill (H. R. 25682) “to punish violations of the Lord’s day in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.” Mr. Howard was very optimistic regarding the prospects for his bill, and stated that he had “no doubt of its ultimate passage.” But again the commissioners recommend adverse action:—
“The commissioners of the District of Columbia have the honor to state with respect to H. R. 25682 of the Sixty-second Congress, second session, entitled ‘A bill to punish violations of the Lord’s day in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes,’ that they do not deem the proposed legislation necessary. While it is obvious that the expression ‘Lord’s day’ is intended to refer to the day of the week called Sunday, it might become the subject of dispute for judicial determination. The expression ‘works of necessity or charity’ might also cause embarrassment for lack of definiteness. There may be some classes of business performed on Sunday which might be deferred to secular days of the week, but they should be made the subject of specific inhibition, if they are to be suspended on that day.
“Nevertheless, the commissioners are not aware of any widely extended sentiment demanding legislation on this subject, and believe that the observance of Sunday in the District of Columbia comports in general with its observance in well-regulated communities elsewhere.”
This report of the District officials is an interesting one. Its language is in marked harmony with that employed in the literature which our people have been using in the interest of religious liberty; and the arguments presented to the House District Committee in this report, so far as we have observed, have not been made use of before in documents of this nature.
When bills are referred to the District commissioners, and they advise that no action be taken regarding them, it is usually the case that the bills are never considered further. No doubt the efforts of those seeking Sunday legislation will now be concentrated upon the remaining Sunday measure, the Johnston Bill. This has already passed the Senate twice in other Congresses. At the present time it is under rule 9 of the Senate. The Sixty-second Congress closes March 4. At this date all bills not passed will expire by limitation.
The adverse reports on these two bills should not lead us to conclude that the danger of religious legislation is past. Powerful influences are at work to secure such legislation before the close of the present Congress, and the necessity of using every means within our power to forestall such a possibility still exists.
Washington, D. C.