SUNDAY REST BILL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
By L. A. P.
- (From our special correspondent.)*
WASHINGTON, D. C., Feb. 25, 1898. To-day at ten o’clock a hearing was granted the promoters and opposers of H. R. Bill 1075 before the sub-committee (Mr. Shannon, N. Y., chairman) of the House Committee on the District of Columbia. This bill was first introduced by Mr. Harmer on March 19, 1897, and has been in the hands of the district commissioners and the sub-committee since that date. The bill in its present form is a revision of a measure submitted some two years ago, but which as then worded was not agreed upon by the commissioners. Following is the bill in full:— - (To further protect the first day of the week as a day of rest in the District of Columbia.)*
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that it shall not be lawful for any person to keep open any place of business or maintain a stand for the sale of any article or articles of profit during Sunday, excepting vendors of books or newspapers, and apothecaries for the dispensing of medicines, and undertakers for the purpose of providing for the dead, or others for the purposes of charity or necessity; nor shall any public playing of football or baseball or any other kind of playing, sports, pastimes, or diversions, disturbing the peace and quiet of the day, be practised by any person or persons within the District of Columbia on Sunday; nor shall any building operations or work upon railroad construction be lawful upon said day; and for any violation of this Act the person offending shall, for each offense, be liable to a fine of not less than five dollars nor more than fifty dollars, and in the case of corporations there shall be a like fine for every person employed in violation of this act laid upon the corporation offending. SEC. 2. That it shall be a sufficient defense to a prosecution for labor on the first day of the week that the defendant uniformly keeps another day of the week as a day of rest, and that the labor complained of was done in such a manner as not to interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of the week as a day of rest. This act shall not be construed to prevent the sale of refreshments other than malt or spirituous liquors, or to prevent the sale of malt and spirituous liquors as now provided for by law, or tobacco, cigars, railroad and steamboat tickets, or the collection and delivery of baggage. Leading speakers favoring the measure and pushing it were Dr. Crafts, representing the Reform Bureau, and Mr. Wm. A. Gordon, attorney in the city of Washington, and member of the Churchman’s League. Other members of the league were present, as were also several ladies, friends of the bill. Speakers against the bill were Gen. Wm. Birney, of Washington; Prof. H. C. Kirk, president of the Secular League of the city of Washington; Dr. W. A. Croffut, vice-president of the Secular League of New Jersey; Dr. George B. Wheeler, representative of the International Religious Liberty Association, and Dr. A. H. Lewis, secretary of the American Sabbath Tract Society, and editor of the Evangel and Sabbath Outlook (Seventh-day Baptist), of Plainfield, N. J. One hour and fifty minutes was given to hearing arguments, the time being divided equally between the two sides. It was asserted by the promoters that in effect this bill contemplates no new departure in legislation respecting Sunday laws, for the reason that for more than twenty years prior to 1886 there had existed a Sunday law for the district. At that late date it was discovered, during a test case, that the law supposed to have been enacted properly in 1864 had inadvertently not received the signature of the mayor, hence was invalid. Changes in the manner of providing for city regulations have placed these regulations in this particular in the hands of Congress, which is now asked merely to mend the breach; hence the claim of no new departure. In further proof of this point, it was stated that that body has already passed four acts of a similar nature for the district, and three outside. The World’s Fair Sunday closing by Congress in 1893 was cited, as were also recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in matters involving religious questions. It was stated that the present bill had been carefully prepared by the framers in consultation with the commissioners, and greatly modified in its demands from the former bill. Mr. Crafts, contrasting it with Sunday laws existing elsewhere, ranked it as the very mildest measure that had yet been proposed, and stated that in the remodeling it had been “toned down to a very modest compromise.” This speaker, voicing the chief arguments for the affirmative, asked for the passage of the bill on a “broad humanitarian basis,” for the protection of laboring classes, merchants, the family, etc. Mr. Gordon urged the point of disturbance produced by the conduct of business and games on Sunday, and while disavowing any purpose whatever to restrict the liberties of any one, believed that the first day of the week should be set apart as a day of rest because it is observed as such by the vast majority of the people of this country. The leading speaker for the bill, anticipating that its opposers might refer to the United States Constitution and to former adverse decisions by Congress in regard to legislating upon matters religious, informed the committee that while such decisions may have been arrived at in the past, they must now be considered antiquated in view of recent acts and decisions. He held that the last acts of Congress favoring Sunday legislation should now govern the committee in reporting this measure. The opposers of the bill, however, discovered far more in it than was brought to view by its promoters. While the friends of the bill gave verbal assurance that certain businesses and pastimes were not included in its prohibitions, it was shown that the clauses, “any place of business,” and “any other kind of playing, sports,” etc., could be and probably would be construed in the broad sense of the language used, and that all extenuations would have to be decided in court. As several exceptions and exemptions rest upon the point of non-disturbance of other persons by presumable offenders, it was urged by Mr. Wheeler that a wide door for abuses was opened in these clauses. A number of instances were cited showing how narrow-minded and avaricious parties had taken advantage of this particular feature in cases of arrest under Sunday laws in other States. They had sworn to being disturbed, whereas the examination revealed that the disturbance was purely mental. It was suggested that a discrimination would have to be made between religious and secular noises. This gentleman, speaking of Seventh-day Adventists, who hold their services on Saturday, stated that they were never disturbed in their worship of the Almighty by the noise of business around them. It was shown that the laws at present protect all religious services from physical disturbance, and that experience thus far has demonstrated that cases of mental disturbance arise solely from the failure of one portion of a community to conform to the ideas of another portion in matters theological. Details of the bill were, however, rapidly passed by the gentlemen opposed to it, while fundamental principles involved were made prominent. Reference was made by nearly all speakers to the openly and oft-declared object of the gentlemen pushing the bill,—to secure by Congress national legislation concerning Sunday laws, and the placing of the name of the Deity in the Constitution. Repeated and persistent attempts have been made in this direction, and the individuals behind them are the same that are behind this bill. Extracts from Mr. Crafts’ published statements were read to the committee, to the effect that all Sunday laws, whatever be their declared object, must rest primarily on a religious foundation. A telling point, evidently, and one keenly appreciated, apparently, by the committee, was here made, that the Government of the United States is asked to legislate a rest day on the first day of the week, imposing fines and penalties which in spite of exemptions must bring annoyance, not to mention injustice, upon a minority who have conscience rights equally with the majority, while God Almighty Himself worked on the first day of the week and rested on the seventh day, our Saturday, commanded all mankind to do likewise, and has never altered that obligation. (Continued from page 16.) The opposition appeared to be perfectly familiar with the primary aims of the promoters of the bill, and endeavored to impress the committee with the inconsistency of all civil legislation in religious affairs. It was represented that this present bill, while apparently simple in its propositions, is an entering wedge and is therefore misleading, contemplating something entirely beyond itself. A specially forcible argument was made by Dr. Lewis, who, speaking for Seventh-day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and all lovers of justice and equal religious rights, based his opposition to this and all other Sunday laws or all acts by civil governments in religious affairs, on the broad principles of absolute separation of the Church and the State, for the welfare of every individual. Upon this platform he did not ask for nor want exemption clauses, for all men are equal before the God of heaven in the matters involved, and into this domain may no man nor nation rightfully enter as controllers. The Lord of heaven, he affirmed, is able to care for Christianity and the Sabbath without outside help. If He is not, let them fall. In Him he placed his entire confidence, who is able to adjudicate all matters. The bill is now in the hands of the sub-committee for further action. L. A. P.