THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
By George I. Butler
It is said that “straws show which way the wind blows,” and no doubt the saying is true; and if the wind should become strong enough to gather up things much heavier than straws, and sweep them along, the direction of the current would be unmistakable. Things are much in this shape concerning the progress of the “Sunday law” question. Any thoughtful person can readily discern the forces at work to bring about that which we have long been expecting, the enforcement by law of the Sunday institution. Even infidels can see this. I clip from a recent number of the Springfield (Mass.) Republican the following extract:— “The free-thinkers are considering whether they won’t ‘join in’ and take a vote or two in national politics. That is, Mr. Abbott’s call for the First Annual Congress of the National Liberal League declares that its principal business will be to decide the question of entering the presidential campaign of 1880 on a platform combining these elements: viz., 1. Total separation of Church and State [the italics are theirs], to be guaranteed by amendment of the United States Constitution; including the equitable taxation of church property, secularization of the public schools, abrogation of Sabbatarian laws, abolition of chaplaincies, prohibition of public appropriations for religious purposes, &c.; 2. National protection for national citizens in their civil, religious, and political rights, to be guaranteed by amendment of the United States Constitution, and afforded through the United States courts; 3. Universal education the basis of universal suffrage in this secular Republic, to be guaranteed by amendment of the United States Constitution, requiring every State to maintain a thoroughly secularized public school system, and to permit no child within its limits to grow up without a good elementary education.” Who cannot see that an effort of such a character on the part of those opposed to religion is well calculated to precipitate the struggle on the Constitutional Amendment question? In every great struggle there are always opposing forces; and the final success of one party is often as much due to the opposition of the other as to its own exertions. Opposition develops latent force in the other party, which otherwise would never have been brought out. Who supposes slavery would have been abolished so soon, if the South had remained quiet with what they had, and had not precipitated the conflict? So here in the Sunday movement, the effort of skeptics, German infidels, and those who hate religion, to secularize everything in our government, to keep open saloons on Sunday, and do other things of like tendency, will stir up the churches to oppose them, and enforce by law their religious tenets. There is something very suggestive in this talk of amending the Constitution. One party wants the word “God” so placed in that venerable document as to give it a religious caste, that they may be authorized to legislate on religious matters, for the upholding of Sunday. The other party wants the Constitution so amended that this government shall become entirely secular. We may be sure this last course will never be permitted until the churches of our land have unitedly contested it; and when these do unitedly take hold, they can carry the country. United, they can carry through any measures they would be likely to advocate. Evidently the free-thinkers see the struggle coming. Last winter, for the first time in my knowledge, agents of the Sunday movement traveled through the leading towns of Iowa, advocating the amendment of the Constitution. These meetings were largely attended. The largest churches were opened for them, showing that the principal denominations were listening favorably. They circulated tracts quite extensively. One of these tracts was placed in the post-office box of the elder of the Knoxville church. Its title is as follows: “Sunday Laws and Sunday Liberty: A Few Plain Words on Some Rights and Duties of American Citizens.” The tract speaks of the importance of Sunday observance in this country and its contrast with foreign practices, tells how this state of things was brought about, its necessity, &c. Quotations are given from the decisions of the supreme court in New York in behalf of Sunday as a civil institution, and an attempt is made to make it appear that the stability of our institutions largely depends upon Sunday rest. We are told that other nations are studying our example; that in many parts of Europe “the question of Sunday rest and its maintenance by law is engaging earnest attention;” and that “our system of Sunday legislation is being studied with care.” The tract adds: “For the sake of our fellow-men in other lands, as well as for our own sakes, should we vigilantly maintain it.” It says further, “The American Sunday laws are not obsolete traditions left as dead letters on our statute books. They are a vital part of our free republican institutions, which is the growth of two centuries’ experience in the problem of adjusting the mutual rights of members of civil society, so as to secure the largest measure of personal liberty consistent with the general good.” “The Sunday laws have uniformly been sustained by the highest courts, as in harmony with the principles of our government.” “Those whose religious convictions do not require the suspension of business on Sunday cannot claim exemption from the restraints of law which are necessary to protect the rest and worship of others. The Mohammedan or Mormon cannot claim exemption from the statutes against polygamy, though his conscience may not forbid, but rather enjoin, the marrying of more than one wife. Liberty of conscience may not interfere with the public welfare.” “The provisions made in some of the States for those who keep Saturday as the Sabbath are necessarily limited and exceptional, inasmuch as the rights of the few must be restricted by the competing rights of the many.” This tract is published by the New York Sabbath Committee, 31 Bible House, New York; and of course stands as a representative document. The references in the above to the rights of seventh-day observers, comparing them with Mohammedans and Mormons, are truly suggestive. The appeal to the civil law, by which to enforce the observance of Sunday, is plain enough for a child to see. Thus we see that the forces to be arrayed for the full development of the Sunday movement, are taking shape. When the free thinkers make a call for their “First Annual Congress of the National Liberal League,” and declare its “principal business” is to decide upon the question “of entering the next presidential election upon this issue of secularization, or of separating Church and State,” who shall say this is not getting to be a great impending question? And when the National Sabbath Committee, located in New York City, sends forth its lecturers all over the country, appealing to the law, and trying to form a public sentiment in favor of enforcing the papal Sunday institution by the law, classing the observers of God’s holy Sabbath with Mohammedans and Mormons, who are violators of God’s law, surely the issue is explicit enough. And instead of these being mere straws which show which way the wind blows, it would seem as if the current had become strong enough to sweep in most anything, when even the infidels are talking of making these things a national issue. The present aspect of national parties, the settlement of most of the past party issues, the process of disintegration so clearly apparent, also point to the same result. New questions must soon attract the public mind. It would be very reasonable, at least, to suppose that the issues we have been considering will soon be live issues before the American people. These things point to the nearing of the end.