Persecution for Keeping One's Hat On
Persecution.—The Pacific (Congregationalist) says: “In Las Vegas, New Mexico, Mr. Cruz, an evangelist, being at a convenient distance from the procession of Corpus Christi, was asked by a policeman to take off his hat, but declined to do so, as did several men near him; the policeman knocked it off. On Mr. Cruz putting it on again, he was arrested for disturbing a religious meeting, and the court fined him $30, and thirty days in the county jail. The policeman gave himself up for striking him, confessed his guilt, and was fined $5.00. Has it come to this in the United States that it is a crime not to adore the host!” It seems so, but, crime or not, it was persecution just the same. Believer or unbeliever, Mr. Cruz had a right to take off his hat or leave it on. It was doubtless idolatry to him to remove it; it was persecution on the part of the officer to compel him. But this is an exact parallel to the Sabbath-keepers of Tennessee. It is to them paying homage to a Romish dogma to observe Sunday different from other days. It is persecution to compel them to observe it. Mr. Cruz in keeping on his hat was exercising only the same right that others did in removing theirs, and the Sabbath-keepers of Tennessee and Maryland are exercising the same inalienable right in working on Sunday that others do in resting. Mr. Cruz infringed upon no right of his neighbor in keeping his hat on; it simply aroused their prejudice and bigotry. The seventh-day people of the states named do not in any way interfere with or disturb their neighbors—except as bigotry or prejudice is aroused. The two cases are parallel if the above report is true, though the religious press in general condemn the one and justify or are silent respecting the other.