STATE OF ALABAMA VS. W. J. HASTY.
W. J. HASTY, of Columbia, Ala., is now in jail charged with “compelling his child to perform labor on Sunday which was not the customary domestic duties of daily necessity or comfort.” A true bill was found against him by the grand jury of the fall term of Circuit Court, in ’95, and he was tried and convicted in the spring term, April 30, ’96. The state brought three witnesses to prove that the work was merely done by the child on Sunday, which was not denied by the defendant, only to the effect that it was not compulsory, as was also testified by the eighteen-year-old boy “child,” in whose interest and for whose defense the suit was brought by the grand jury. This “child” testified that he was a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church; that he joined this church on his own convictions, and of his free-will, and that he observed the Sabbath and worked on Sunday from a sense of duty; that his father never even asked him to work on Sunday, and that on the day in question, he himself proposed to his father that they plow a certain field of peas on that day. Neither of the witnesses testified that the boy was compelled to do the work. They only knew that the work was done by the boy, and presumed that he was forced to do it; for, as the attorney general said, “It is unlike an Alabama boy to work of his own free-will on any day.” The usual arguments justifying the Sunday legislation upon civil basis were eloquently dwelt upon by the prosecuting attorney, and were forcibly met by Hon. R. H. Walker, of Columbia, who volunteered his services in the defense of the defendant. After showing that the civil law has no right to enforce disobedience to the plain command of God, or even to enforce obedience to his command, he traced the history of the Bible Sabbath from Moses to its change by Constantine, A.D. 321, establishing the fact that Christ and the apostles kept that day, and, it being the Sabbath of the most ancient law-book, and never having been repealed, it was binding upon all to this day, and that legislation upon this institution was emphatically religious legislation, and for that reason, according the Constitution of the United States, and that of Alabama, such legislation was void, and therefore no law. Mr. Walker then explained that the intent of the Alabama Sunday law was to protect the rights of minors or servants who desired to observe Sunday, when employed by those who were not under the restrictions of Sunday laws themselves, but that if the minor or the servant should engage in labor, not forbidden by the law, of their own free-will, and not having been forced to do it, the law could not hold that such labor was compelled by employer or guardian; and the judge, in his charge to the jury, recognized this purpose of the law in the following:— “It is not whether the boy of the defendant worked on Sunday, but whether the defendant compelled him to do so, that is, did he force him to do such work. Before the jury can reach a conviction of the defendant in the case, they must believe from the evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty, that the defendant compelled his son to work on the first Sunday in June, 1895; and unless this has been proven by evidence to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt, the jury should acquit the defendant. “If the jury should believe from the evidence, that the minor children of the defendant worked at the time, said by the state, of their own volition, and not compelled to do so by the father, then the defendant would not be guilty, and it would be the duty of the jury to acquit the defendant.” In the face of the above testimony and charge, the jury was out only a short time before they reached a verdict of “guilty,” with an imposed fine of $20, the limit of the law, and the costs, $31.70. The defendant refused to give bond for the payment of the amounts, and was lodged in jail in default immediately after trial. He will be taken to the mines, to work out the above amount at thirty cents per day. Public feeling is very much against Seventh-day Adventists in Columbia, yet Mr. Hasty has many friends, and, as he was locked in the jail, there was intense feeling against such treatment of so good a man. Tears were seen in many eyes, and many proposed to pay him out, and we would not be surprised if he would soon be released by friends paying his fine and costs for him.—Southern Review.