A “REASONABLY JUST” SUNDAY LAW.
By W. N. G.
The question of a Sunday law is being considered again in certain quarters, and undoubtedly will not down until a reasonably just law has been placed upon the statute books. There are many people who do not approve of a sabbath law, yet there has not to our knowledge been a tenable argument presented against a law that will cause the people in general to show greater respect for the day. From birth to manhood we were taught by a good mother to not only respect the day, but to honor it as a blessing. In nearly all of the older States there is in force a civil sabbath law, and under such provisions of restraint the day is observed by mercantile firms and nearly all branches of business.—Marysville (Cal.) Democrat. The foregoing item suggests the quite common error that it is possible to enact “a reasonably just” Sunday law. Most of the court decisions against such laws have been on the ground of unequal, or class, legislation; and most of the judges rendering such decisions have intimated that they would uphold such laws if constructed in a manner that would bear equally upon all. The latter proposition, however, always comes in as a kind of apology for the decision which the court feels compelled in justice to make, or as a balm for the wounded feelings of those who favor such laws. Many of the conscientious people who advocate a Sunday law that will bear with equal pressure upon all classes, do not stop to ponder the fact that such a law is an impossibility. A law that works injustice to a single individual is an unjust law. There never has been a Sunday law passed in any country or State that was not based upon the supposed religious character of the day. There never has been a Sunday law suggested of which the suggestion did not come from that class of citizens who deem it a religious duty to observe Sunday as a day of worship. The suggestion of a civil rest day, on sanitary or other grounds, has always been a subterfuge by which to secure a legal recognition of Sunday because of its alleged religious character. This is shown in the notable fact that we never hear a suggestion to set apart any other day than Sunday for such a purpose. The civil government has no power to enforce “respect” for days. In ordinary holidays there is no attempt to enforce respect for them. People do as they please on such days. The editor quoted in the paragraph which we have given, says he was “taught by a good mother to not only respect the day, but to honor it as a blessing.” Well, why does he not follow the teaching of his good mother, and let it rest there? There is nothing in the law of California to hinder him or any one else from doing so. There is no country in the world where men are freer to obey their religious convictions than in the Golden State. Or did his good mother teach him that it was his duty, or the duty of the Legislature, to compel other people to follow her teaching? Many other good mothers have not so taught their children; are their children all to be driven by the Legislature to obey the teachings of this editor’s mother? Was she the only mother who knew how to teach her children? Again he says: “In nearly all of the older States there is in force a civil sabbath law, and under such provisions of restraint the day is observed by mercantile firms and nearly all branches of business.” Mark it, he says “nearly all branches of business.” Well, the same condition is true in the greater part of California, without any so-called “civil sabbath law.” But, as a matter of fact, there is not a “civil sabbath law” in all the world; for the reason that there could be no such law. “Civil sabbath” is a contradiction of terms, in the modern acceptation of the word “sabbath.” Whatever it may have meant originally, no one in these days pretends to use it as an English word with any other idea than to signify a religious institution. And the language of the editor whom we have quoted shows that he himself so regards it. Referring to the “civil sabbath” laws of the older States, the editor of the Democrat intimates that he would deem them “reasonably just” laws; yet he shows that not all branches of business are brought under “such provisions of restraint.” And that is the case everywhere where Sunday laws exist. In the city of Baltimore, where the railroads, livery stables, many liquor shops, etc., do business at pleasure on Sunday, a poor crippled man, mending his own shoes in his own back room, is carried off to prison by the vigilant police. In a Georgia town, a school-teacher, engaged in arranging some desks preparatory to beginning school on Monday, is haled away to prison and to trial, while hundreds of other more prominent enterprises are being carried on in full view of the public. Many instances of a like character can be cited in eight or nine of the older States in the execution of their “reasonably just” Sunday laws within the past decade. In fact, this is about the only principle on which the Sunday laws of the older States ever have been enforced, excepting a few political spurts in New York and other cities. The only reason that religious persecution is not rife in those States is because there is no general attempt to execute the Sunday laws. With the exception of a few gushes of political morality, for political purposes, in some of the cities, the cases of Sunday-law enforcement have been mere outbursts of religious spleen against men and women engaged in legitimate labor for an honest living. And this is the spirit which in the main will be responsible for a general execution of the Sunday laws, when such a time shall come. As they are begotten of a spirit of religious intolerance, they can only be executed under pressure of that spirit. They were an inheritance from the religious tyranny of the Colonies, from which, had the Revolution done its work fully, the States would have been free. But that seed of Church and State union was left, to lie in a measure dormant until the spirit of intolerance should again gain sufficient influence to foster it into action. No; a Sunday law can not be “reasonably just,” for the reason that it can only be the compulsory observance of a religious institution by the civil law. If one such institution can be thus foisted upon the people, all others may with equal propriety. That the older States have opened the door to such legislation, is no reason why California should do so.