THE “HEBREW SUNDAY BILL.”
By C. M. S.
THE State Legislature of Massachusetts has been doing battle over the old question of religious liberty. On Friday, April 12, the bill known as the “Hebrew Sunday Bill” was put upon its passage, and won by a standing vote. When the roll was called, however, many who had voted for the bill voted against it, seemingly afraid to go on record in the matter, and the bill was defeated. On the following Monday it was voted to reconsider the bill, inasmuch as it had been put thru without its advocates having a chance to defend it in open debate, and the discussion revealed several staunch advocates of religious liberty in the Legislature of the Old Commonwealth. It also revealed the presence of those who are unable to appreciate a conscientious regard for the true Sabbath day, or to sense the injustice of majority rule in matters of conscience. After considerable discussion, the bill was passed by a vote of 98 to 69. Of course the Massachusetts Sunday law still holds; and as long as it does, Massachusetts can lay no claim to being a religious-liberty State, no matter how many amendments or exemptions are made to the law. Legislation upon matters of conscience and religion is always wrong in principle and oppressive in practice, unreasonable and unscriptural; but it is refreshing to see even a slight ray of light breaking thru the mists and clouds, even tho there be no prospect of a general and genuine religious liberty. The measure referred to reads as follows:— “Whoever conscientiously believes that the seventh day of the week, or the period from sundown on Friday night to sundown on Saturday night, ought to be observed as the Sabbath, and actually refrains from secular business and labor during that day or period, or whoever having such belief actually refrains from keeping open his shop, warehouse, or workhouse during that day or period, and has filed with the clerk of the city or town wherein he intends to keep open his shop, warehouse, or workhouse on the Lord’s day a certificate setting forth such intention, his name, the purpose for which he intends to keep open his shop, warehouse, or workhouse, and the place where the same is located, giving the street and number when practicable, shall not be liable to the penalties of this section for performing secular business and labor on the Lord’s day if he does not disturb or interfere with any other person, nor for keeping open his shop, warehouse, or workhouse at such place on the Lord’s day if he does not disturb or interfere with any other person.” It will be noticed that by the provisions of this exemption, all those who wish to labor or do business on Sunday must file with the city or town clerk a certificate, or declaration of intentions. Some of the legislators would have made it necessary for any one who wished to make a purchase on Sunday to file a similar certificate; but this did not prevail. One speaker declared that it was an unfair bill, as it “would give one race an unfair advantage over others.” In what the unfairness consisted he did not show; nor is it easy for one to imagine. For certainly the man who can labor, or keep his shop or store open six days in the week has an advantage, so far as this world goes, over the one who, after resting upon the Sabbath, is compelled by law to refrain from labor on another day. Mr. Roads, of Marblehead, declared that it was “a matter of liberty of conscience, a right guaranteed to every man by the Constitution.” “There are,” said he, “numbers of Christian people who fervently believe that the seventh day is the true Sabbath, and have observed it as such.” Mr. Saunders, of Boston, referred to the early history of Massachusetts, and her dark record in the matter of religious persecution, and closed his address with these words: “We are making history to-day. We can take the pen with a halting hand and make a blot upon the statute books, to be wiped out in the future in humiliation and repentance; or we can grasp it firmly, and write upon the book in letters of living light, ‘For every citizen within the Bay State, equal and complete religious liberty.’” C. M. S.