A Sunday Law for the District of Columbia
By J. S. Washburn
In the Congressional Record of April 6, 1904, on page 4538, is found the following:— “Mr. Babcock.—Mr. Speaker, I ask consideration of the bill H. R. 11,819. “The Speaker.—The gentleman from Wisconsin calls up the following bill, which the clerk will report. “The clerk read as follows:— “‘A bill (H. R. 11,819) requiring certain places of business in the District of Columbia to be closed on Sunday.
“‘Be it enacted, etc., That it shall be unlawful for any person in the District of Columbia to sell or to offer for sale, or to keep open any place of business for the sale or delivery of, any groceries or fruits or meats or vegetables or other provisions on Sunday, except that from the first day of June until the first day of October meats sold prior to Sunday may be delivered at any time before ten o'clock of the morning of that day. Any person who shall violate the provisions of this act shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than fifty dollars for the first offense, and for each subsequent offense by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the jail of the District of Columbia for a period of not less than one month nor more than three months, or by both fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.” “‘SECTION 2.—That all prosecutions for violations of this act shall be in the police court of the District of Columbia and in the name of the District of Columbia. “Mr. Maddox.—Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin a question. “Mr. Maddox.—Do I understand the amendment strikes out the word “fruits” entirely? [The bill had been amended in the committee.] “Mr. Babcock.—It allows fruits to be sold. “Mr. Maddox.—And closes up every other business? “Mr. Babcock.—No; this bill has been prepared at the request and by the unanimous indorsement of the grocers and butchers of the District. “Mr. Maddox.—And it only refers to them, does it? “Mr. Babcock.—It only refers to them. They desire to close their business on Sunday, but the committee thought it was proper that fruit stands might be opened.” “The amendment was agreed to. “The bill as amended was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; and being engrossed, was read the third time, and passed.” Two requests were made for a hearing before the committee for the District of Columbia, one of them by a representative of the Seventh-day Adventists; but these requests were refused. The committee, as stated by the secretary, felt that the unanimous demand of the Butchers' and Grocers' Association should be regarded, and there was no need of, and should be no opportunity for, protest. I called at once on the secretary of the Senate committee for the District of Columbia, and was informed by him that he was certain that no hearing would be granted before the Senate committee. He stated that the bill was right, and that as we were in the minority, we had no right to protest against the voice of the majority in matters of religion. Senator Long, of Kansas, who was next interviewed, though not a member of the District committee, seemed to be opposed to the bill, and stated that he thought the committee could be prevailed upon to give a hearing. Senator Stewart, of Nevada, who is the third member of the committee of thirteen, is opposed to religious legislation on principle, and is in favor of granting us a hearing. Senator Hansbrough, of North Dakota, who is the second member of the committee, seemed quite favorable to granting us a hearing. Senator Gallinger, the chairman of the District committee, is, however committed to the principle of religious legislation. Through him W. F. Crafts secures the publication of his National Reform documents at public expense. If this Sunday law comes to the District committee, it is almost certain to be favorably considered. If it is favorably considered by the Senate committee, it is sure to pass in the Senate; and then will inevitably follow a flood of religious legislation, and in time,—we can not say how long,—all we have expected will be experienced.