More Sunday Legislation by Congress
By L. A. S.
On three separate occasions of comparatively recent date the national legislature—the Congress of the United States—has occupied itself with the settlement of questions and the enactment of legislation lying within the domain of religion. On the first of these occasions, in 1892, Congress decided that Sunday is the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and enacted that the gates of the World's Fair at Chicago should be closed on that day. The second of these occasions arose with the appropriation of five million dollars from the national treasury for the benefit of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, in 1901, the managers being obliged, as a condition of receiving this money, to bind themselves by a strict agreement for Sunday closing of the entire exposition. The third of these occasions has only just passed into history, having occurred on the eighth day of this present month. The facts of this most recent instance of Congressional religious legislation should be of interest to the readers of this paper. Especially would we invite to them the attention of any who may have thought that this issue of religious legislation had died out, and was no longer to be taken into serious consideration. The occasion of the action taken by Congress on the 8th inst., was the appropriation of a sum of money to the “Lewis and Clark Centennial and American Pacific Exposition,” to be held at Portland, Ore., to celebrate the hundredth anniversary of the exploration of the Oregon country. The bill before Congress provided for the appropriation of $1,775,000 for this purpose. The Senate committee having the bill in charge presented the following amendment:— That no machinery shall be operated on said exposition grounds on a Sunday for the purpose of display, and all places of amusement within the enclosure of the exposition grounds shall be closed on every Sunday during the period that such exposition shall be held. Provision shall be made by those in charge of the exposition grounds for the holding of devotional exercises and sacred concerts on the grounds on Sundays. An amendment to this amendment providing for Sunday closing of the exposition was then presented by Senator Platt, of Connecticut, thus:— That as a condition precedent to the payment of any and all appropriations made in this act, the corporation in charge of the exposition shall contract with the Secretary of the Treasury to keep the gates closed on Sundays during the entire period of the exposition. Senator Fulton stated that the question of Sunday closing had “been discussed very widely in the city of Portland and throughout the State of Oregon,” and that “almost unanimously the people favor the amendment reported by the committee,” allowing Sunday opening of the exposition grounds. Senator Bailey said: “I can not quite understand why this Congress shall prescribe that anybody anywhere shall conduct religious exercises. . . . I am opposed to inserting into a law of Congress any requirement that anybody shall be compelled to hold religious exercises of any kind.” “I believe as devoutly as anybody in churches; I believe in the propriety of religious exercises; but I do not believe they ought to be held under the requirements of Congress.” An amendment was passed striking out the words “devotional exercises,” leaving only “sacred concerts” to be provided in the exposition grounds on Sundays. The discussion then turned again upon Senator Platt’s amendment for Sunday closing of both the exposition and the grounds. Mr. Platt said:— Congress provided in the St. Louis exposition bill that the gates should not be opened on Sundays; and I think Congress ought not to recede from that proposition. . . . I think that Congress, once having taken that stand, ought not to recede from it. Note the illustration of the fact that one act committing Congress to the principle of religious legislation is certain to be used as a precedent and a lever for forcing Congress to go further in this direction. The progress of this kind that had been made since the act closing the gates of the Chicago exposition was alluded to by Senator Bailey. He said:— It looks to me as though the very history of this provision, as traced by the senator from Connecticut, serves to warn us. We first began at Chicago, providing that there should be no exhibits on Sunday. . . . We proceed along this line for ten years. Then comes the St. Louis appropriation, and then the Congress not only says there shall be no government exhibits open to inspection on Sundays, but that the gates shall be closed. Then when we reach Portland, in Oregon, in this good year of our Lord 1904, we are confronted with a proposition to require religious exercises and sacred concerts. Thus the matter grows apace, and these local communities, in order to get federal aid in the shape of money, are submitting their local affairs to the control of the general government. So far as I am concerned, I do not think the religious people of this country5are looking to Congress to protect their religion. Their religion has grown and spread its blessed teachings all over this land without the aid of the laws of Congress, and without even the aid of the legislatures of the several States. The religious sentiment of this country makes no such demand as this upon the American Congress. It does not require—indeed, it will not sanction—a law of Congress that assumes that the people of these communities can not be trusted to spend their Sabbath days in the proper observance of their religious duties. But the speech that went straight to the merits of the question was made by Senator Stewart, of Nevada, who spoke as if commissioned to deliver a message of divine truth to the lawmakers of the nation. He said:— Mr. President, I hope the amendment of the senator from Oregon [Mr. Mitchell] will prevail, and I presume it will, but I should like to remark here that I think it inappropriate for Congress to enact any legislation in regard to the religious observance of the Sabbath or any other matters pertaining to religion. It was the most fortunate condition that ever occurred on earth that in the formation of our Constitution religious freedom was ordained. The people of the different colonies came here as believers in the creeds of various denominations. They were very radical in their beliefs, and it was many years before the residents of some of the colonies could even visit the others. When, finally, the conflict came with Great Britain, the colonists united for the purpose of general defense, and after they had succeeded in the Revolution, it was found necessary, in order to preserve the government, that they should form a constitution. But so jealous were they of their particular creeds—for there were different creeds in each of the colonies—that they left out any reference to creed in the Constitution, and provided that each individual might worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. I believe that idea has done more for liberty, for religion, for progress, and for civilization than any other provision of the Constitution, or any other proposition that was ever made in this or any other country. In traveling through Europe last year and some years before, I met people there alluding to our country and the blessing of the principle that here prevails, that all people may worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. I am utterly opposed to assuming any jurisdiction over the consciences of men or regulating their religious principles by the general government, because our position on that question has permeated the entire world; it is world-wide; it is going on revolutionising the bad practises of tyranny everywhere, and the people of the whole world long for that glorious privilege. All interference in the matter of religion having been removed from the province of the general government by common consent in forming the Constitution, I agree with the Senator from Texas [Mr. Bailey], and I am old-fashioned enough to wish to have all allusion to Sunday closing or religion left out of the bill, and let the States and local communities regulate such matters as they may see proper. Senator Fulton said there was no more valid objection to the opening of the exposition grounds on Sunday than there would be to the opening of a public park on that day; to which Senator Platt replied that “when we are called upon to appropriate large sums of money to one of these exhibitions, we may very well provide that the universal sentiment that one day in seven shall be observed as a day of rest, shall be observed with reference to that institution.” Senator Platt also quoted from a speech made by Congressman Dingley for closing the Chicago World’s Fair, in which that congressman cited among other reasons for closing the fair, the fact that “in the estimation of millions, the divine injunction to ‘remember the Sabbath day and [to] keep it holy’ is regarded as a command of the Creator, to be obeyed as a religious duty.” Then he again appealed to the precedent for religious legislation which had been set up: “As I said before, the Senate and the Congress have once adopted this principle, have once recognized the Sabbath as a day in which the government should not engage, or if it contributed its money, should not permit States or corporations to engage, in the amusement business, in the show business. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.” After some further discussion, during which Senator Gallinger, of New Hampshire, said that “the churches of New England desire this exposition to be closed on the Sabbath day,” the yeas and nays were taken, and Senator Platt’s amendment closing up the exposition and grounds on Sunday was carried by a vote of twenty-nine to seventeen. Senator Platt (of Connecticut), the author of this amendment, is the same individual who not very long ago arose in Congress with an amendment to the Declaration of Independence, changing that vital phrase “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” by injecting into it the word “some,” so that the American doctrine would be, and by the action taken at that time now is, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of some of the governed. The closing of an exposition on Sunday by act of Congress at the dictation of a part of the Sunday-observing religious element of the people, is distinctly an illustration of government by the consent of “some” of the governed. Thus passes another historic occasion leading to the fulfilment of that which inspired prophecy has spoken of this nation, regarding the attitude to be taken by its government toward the truth and the people of God. The recognition of Sunday as the Christian sabbath and the principle of legislation to uphold a religious institution are now well entrenched by precedent in the national lawmaking body. Other steps are soon to follow, and the climax of the controversy will erelong be reached.