SUNDAY-LAW AGITATION IN IDAHO.
By W. F. Martin
BELIEVERS in religious legislation have for some time been very active in Idaho. Following is a copy of a petition which for some time has been circulating:— “To the Legislature of the State of Idaho— “We, the undersigned residents of the State of Idaho, respectfully call your attention to the fact that our laws are wholly wanting in provisions efficient for the enforcement of the proper regard for the Sabbath. We believe it to be the duty of the Legislature to look into the inefficiency of our statutes in this regard and to take such steps and pass such laws as will enforce a due observance of this day. We especially insist that such laws may be passed as to prevent the opening and running of saloons and places kept for the purpose of selling liquors upon Sunday. There can be no question about the authority or the duty of the Legislature in this regard, and we earnestly request that you act upon this most important matter.” You will see that this is to be signed by “residents.” That does not necessarily mean citizens. This petition was handed to each member of the Legislature. The Idaho Sunday-school Union also passed a memorial, thru its officers, praying the Legislature to pass laws securing a proper observance of Sunday. A copy of this was also handed to each member of the Senate and House. It was soon evident on the convening of the Legislature that no rigid Sunday law could pass or meet with any degree of favor. It was thought, however, that by giving the measure a semblance of being in the interest of temperance, it could thus be passed and prove the entering wedge to further religious legislation. With this end in view, a bill was prepared having for its object the closing of saloons in rural districts and villages on Sunday. Following is the text of the bill:— “To regulate the closing of places where intoxicating liquors are sold, and to prevent the sale on the Sabbath day.” “Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho— “SECTION 1. Any person or persons engaged in the selling of intoxicating liquors outside the limits of incorporated towns or villages, shall close such places of business on the sabbath day, commonly known as Sunday, and not later than twelve o’clock P.M. on all other days of the week. “SEC. 2. Any person or persons, agent or employee of any association or corporation guilty of violating any of the provisions of this act, by selling or giving away intoxicating liquors on the sabbath day, commonly known as Sunday, or selling or giving away intoxicating liquors later than twelve o’clock P.M. on any other day, shall, upon conviction thereof, pay a fine not less than fifty nor more than one hundred dollars, together with costs of suit, for each and every offense. “SEC. 3. All acts and parts of acts in conflict with this act are hereby repealed. “SEC. 4. This act shall take effect and be in full force from and after thirty days after its approval by the governor.” This bill was written and presented by Senator Jones, a Mormon bishop. It was referred to the Committee on State Affairs. The writer went before this committee and was granted a hearing, which occupied nearly an hour. It was shown that, as it is a disputed question regarding the day of the Sabbath, the Legislature of Idaho by passing this bill would give legal sanction and prestige to a religious controversy, which would be religious legislation. This was seen and agreed to by most members of the committee. Again, the point was made that no legislation regarding either Sunday or the Sabbath could be enacted without intermeddling with religion. Part of the committee also agreed to this, so it was decided to report the bill to the Senate and have it discussed in the Committee of the Whole. The bill came up for discussion February 5. The framer of the bill denied that it was a religious measure, altho in a private conversation he had admitted as much and claimed that as this is a Christian nation, it was all right to pass religious laws. It was then moved to amend the bill so as to strike out the words “the sabbath day, commonly known as Sunday.” This carried. The chairman of the committee then arose and made a very strong speech against the bill, asking why, if it was not a religious measure, they picked out Sunday on which to close the saloons. “Why,” said he, “don’t you select Tuesday or some other day?” In the course of his speech, he also asserted that Sunday was not the Sabbath day, but that Saturday was the true Sabbath. Others spoke against the bill, and several amendments were offered. After a very animated discussion, it was moved and carried that the bill be referred to the Committee on Irrigation and Water Rights. This seemed to be a travesty on the bill, as it was claimed to be a temperance measure. The bill came up again February 16, and a strong effort was made to pass it. Some of the brightest men in the Senate, however, opposed it on the ground of its being a religious measure. Again it failed to pass, but still has its place on the calendar. It is not thought now that the bill can ever become a law. Should it pass the Senate, a leader of the House stated to the writer that he would oppose it when it came to that body. This bill may not pass, but the activity of the church people along these lines, shows the trend of things toward the union of Church and State, and reveals more distinctly that the two-horned beast of Rev. 13:11 is soon to speak as a dragon. May God’s people be faithful in proclaiming the great truths of Rev. 14:9-12. W. F. MARTIN.