RELIGIOUS LEGISLATION BEFORE CONGRESS
By S. B. Horton
Proposed Laws to Restrict the Mails — Would Exclude Publications That Criticize Religious Creeds — Would Enact More Sunday Laws Many persons may fail to see anything particularly significant in the facts presented by Elder Horton in the following article. They may think not only that the open letter to Congress is unnecessary, but that the ground over which the appeal is made has no significance. But the readers of this paper who for the last forty years and more have been following the developments pointing in the direction of fulfilling the prophecy of Revelation 13 and 14, will see something very significant in these persistent efforts to secure religious legislation through our national Congress. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press has been one of the great bulwarks of our American civilization. And the fact that persistent efforts were made, in the last Congress, to prohibit the use of the mails to publications which criticized creeds, and that the same effort is made in this Congress, shows that there are men who think sufficient sentiment has been manufactured in this country to warrant them in pressing such legislation. Things like these show unmistakably the trend toward a religious despotism such as the prophecy calls for. THE wheels of the sixty-fourth Congress had hardly been put in motion before it was discerned that history would repeat itself in the matter of introducing measures involving the principles of civil and religious liberty. At this writing, not less than four measures have been introduced in behalf of Sunday laws, and amending post office regulations so as to prohibit the use of the mails to certain publications. Prior to the meeting of Congress, which took place December 6, the press of Washington reported that such measures would be introduced; and the Religious Liberty Association, with headquarters at Washington, anticipating that these newspaper reports would be focused into proposed legislation, issued the following open letter to the sixty-fourth Congress: “To the Sixty-fourth Congress: “The sixty-fourth Congress of the United States takes up its duties at a most critical moment in our national history. The world war, and this nation’s relation to it, as well as domestic problems of intense moment, will require of this Congress perhaps as great if not greater intelligence, deeper patriotism, and calmer judgment, than ever before demanded of any Congress, even when our country was itself convulsed with civil strife, or its sovereignty threatened by foreign war. “The survival of our liberties has been largely due to the rule loyally followed in the past of adhering strictly to the original American ideals in settling domestic problems as well as in adjusting foreign relations. “No Congress could be confronted with graver problems than those involving the foundation principles upon which the nation was established; and such are some of the issues with which the sixty-fourth Congress stands face to face. “In this communication, we beg to raise a question in regard to certain proposed legislation, contravening, in our judgment, the fundamental principles of American liberty. For example, we have reason to anticipate that an attempt will be made to persuade you to nullify the intent and purpose of the first amendment to the constitution. The Intermountain Catholic, Salt Lake City, Utah, November 6, 1915, had this item: “Congressman Elect Siegel, of New York, will advocate the passage of a bill in the next Congress that will prohibit the use of the mails to any publication making it a practice to defame any creed, race, or religion.’ “You will doubtless recall that in the sixty-third Congress, this very question was considered in the form of two bills (H. R. 2064 and H. R. 20780) introduced into the House and referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads, which conducted a hearing on the subject February 1, 1915. “It was held, by the opponents of these measures, that the legislation proposed was indefensible, ‘inasmuch as it enables the government to exercise indirectly a power which was not conferred upon it either directly or indirectly by the constitution’; namely, the power to control the press in favor of religion; and maintaining with Chancellor Kent that it has become a constitutional principle in this country, that ‘every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments, on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and that no law can rightfully be passed to restrain or abridge the freedom of speech or of the press.’—‘Commentaries on American Law,’ James Kent, 1848, volume 2, sixth edition, page 17. “We respectfully submit that the principles of liberty are directly involved in proposed legislation compelling the closing of barber shops in the District of Columbia on Sunday, and other similar measures. “The present Congress is not the first to be urged to enact laws of this character. In the twentieth and twenty-first Congresses, the subject of Sunday observance was considered from every viewpoint; and it was decided by the statesmen of that day that the whole question belonged to the realm of religion, and that Congress could not determine for any citizen the duty of regarding one day above another. That this was the attitude of the fathers of our country may be drawn from the following excerpt from House Report on Sunday Mails, communicated March 4 and 5, 1830: “It is perhaps fortunate for our country that the proposition (to enact Sunday legislation) should have been made at this early period while the spirit of the Revolution yet exists in full vigor.’—‘American State Papers,’ class 7, page 229.8 “Congress has uniformly decided against legislation of this character, regarding it as violative of that part of the first amendment which provides that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.’” “We request, therefore, that the present Congress adhere strictly to the precedents of the past on this subject, and that our liberties be as jealously guarded by our national legislators during 1915-1916 as they were by the lawmakers of three quarters of a century ago. “RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ASSOCIATION.” The SIGNS OF THE TIMES will furnish its readers, from time to time, with information as to the progress of this legislation, which, it is to be hoped, will not receive the favorable consideration of Congress.