Our Work and the Sunday Trials in Arkansas.
By E. W. Farnsworth
WE know that our brethren and sisters will be deeply interested in the work here in Arkansas. In company with Brethren Wood and Scoles, we began meetings Friday evening, October 30, with a small congregation; and we could tell by the feeling, as well as the looks, that the current was very much against us. Every accommodation had to be paid for at the highest cost. But we tried to seek help from God, and he heard us. What gave these meetings special interest was, as our brethren are aware, the fact that Brother Scoles and two others had been indicted, and that their trial was coming off at this time. These trials caused more excitement, far more, than all the others combined. We secured the best counsel we could get in this part of the State,—Judge Walker, ex-member of the United States Senate. He told us he had but little hope that he could win the case in this court. His only hope was in the Supreme Court. He has done his very best, but the law is clearly against us. It is about the same as the Sunday laws of other States, with no exceptions from pains and penalties for those who keep the Sabbath. Our lawyer reasoned before the judge that the law was unconstitutional, first, because it was an infringement of religious freedom or the right of conscience, inasmuch as it compelled men to keep as the Sabbath a day which their conscience and the Bible taught them was not the Sabbath; secondly, because it was an infringement of the right of property, taking from us one-sixth part of our time, and the time of a laboring man being his property, the law was in its nature a robber; thirdly, because it took away a right that God had given,—the right to labor six days and rest one. But all this was overruled by the judge. I never was so impressed with the power of what to me seemed sophistry as I was while listening to his rulings; and yet he seemed to be honest and unbiased. He belonged to no church, and seemed to be a candid, fair man. Especially was I impressed with this while conversing with him in private. The readers of the Review will be interested to know how a law could be made to appear constitutional that compels a man to keep as the Sabbath a certain day which his conscience forbids his keeping, when the Constitution gives the most abundant religious freedom; and how such a law could be made to appear constitutional, when each week it took two days from the Sabbath-keeper and only one from the Sunday-keeper, while the Constitution declares that all men shall stand equal before the law. The judge ruled that the law rested equally upon all, that the law required that all men should rest one day, and that the first day of the week; which requirement rested alike on all,—the Methodist, the Baptist, the Congregationalist, the Sabbatarian, the Jew, the worldling, the infidel—all alike. It demanded one day of all; but if there were parties among these classes whose religious scruples demanded that they keep another day, they could do it. They might keep every day if they chose, and the law would not meddle with them, that being a part of their religion of which the law would not deprive them. The law forbade no man keeping Saturday if he wished to; it only commanded him to keep Sunday; but if his religion compelled him to keep another day, then it was his religion, and not the law, that took the extra day; hence the law took no property from one class that it did not, from another, thus bearing equally upon all. It meddled with no man's religion, as it gave every man the liberty to keep as many days as he chose. But his ruling in reference to the exercise of our conscience before the law was more astonishing still. He took the position that no citizen had a right to set up his conscience in opposition to the laws of the State, that we are to be governed by the State; to enforce and illustrate which, he referred to the Mormons. Their religion and conscience told them to marry many wives; but the Government stepped in with the law, without regard to their conscience or religion, and they were fined and imprisoned for the violation of the law. Of course our counsel took exceptions to all this, and the case is appealed to the higher court, where it will take several months to get it through. The matter will rest where it is till a decision is reached. The scene in the court room was a most interesting one. It was crowded full, men being present from all parts of the county. Our attorney made a most telling argument. He said he had supposed, and our people supposed, that the Constitution amounted to something. He had supposed that the law of God amounted to something; his client thought the same. He had supposed that religious liberty in this country amounted to something. But all this had been swept away as an illusion, a thing of the past, and we were given to understand that the wheel of time had been turned backward a thousand years. After he had finished, Brother Scoles was granted the privilege of speaking in his own defense. He occupied about forty minutes. The Spirit of God and the surrounding circumstances gave his words solemnity and power. As far as possible, he presented the scriptural grounds for our observance of the Sabbath. The crowd was held in perfect silence. To see a minister of the gospel on trial in a court of justice, pleading with the Bible in his hand for the authority of God's law and for liberty to keep it, was a sight that has not often been seen in the past, but we believe will be repeated many times in the future. As a result of the trial and the meetings we have held, there seems to be a most wonderful change in the opinions and sentiments of the people respecting us. While there are a few prejudiced bigots who are still in favor of enforcing the law, the great majority of the people say that the law is wrong, and that we should have the privilege of working on Sunday if we keep the Sabbath. Our large tent 50x70 ft. is nearly full every night. Some nights it is crowded. The very best citizens of the place attend; and it is but justice to the people to say that we have seldom been in a place where there is more respect shown or better attention given. A collection of $10 was taken up Sunday night. The most perfect order prevails, with no effort to keep it, and these impressions have gone all over the county. To God be all the praise. But never did I realize on how brittle a thread hangs our religious freedom till I had this experience. There were a few Jews in the city of Little Rock, who kept their stores open on all days of the week. Under the former provision of the law, they were shielded from the fine of Sunday labor by their professed desire to keep the Sabbath; but they did not keep any day. The other merchants were angry, persuaded the Legislature to repeal the exception from the statute-book, and religious freedom was gone. At least, I am informed that this is the way the thing was done. It was but little more than a stroke of the pen. I have no idea the Legislature had any reference to us as a people. I do not suppose they knew much, if anything, about us. There might have been some special one who did know us and worked for the repeal of the exception, keeping the real reason a secret. We do not know. But it is somewhat strange, and a good deal significant, that, so far as we can learn, no one else in the State but conscientious Sabbath-keepers has been indicted and tried; the case of one alone excepted, and he was quickly cleared. And it is generally thought that that was a "trumped-up" case, and brought up more as a blind than for any other reason, that the prosecution of our brethren might not look so much like religious persecution. When I see how easy it is for a court to explain away the Constitution that gives us freedom of conscience, and then see how easy it is to give apparent coloring to his rulings by comparing us to the Mormons or illustrating our case by theirs, and then instruct the jury accordingly, what can we really expect? In a certain sense, religious freedom is just as sacred in Arkansas as in Iowa or Michigan. If the exception in those States should be taken away, there would be persons in almost any neighborhood who would have our brethren indicted and fined. The cost in these trials is considerably greater than we expected. It will be at least $300, and probably more. The brethren in Arkansas are thankful for the assistance their brethren have given them; and I know they appreciate it. And if there are still others who feel like sending any more such help, it will come in good time. We know not how it will all turn out at last. We cannot but hope that God will in some way overrule it to his glory and the advancement of the cause. But it makes a great difference in a man's labor whether the law of the State is in his favor or against him. Brother Butler truly said in his article, "There is no romance in this thing to our brethren."—E. W. Farnsworth, in Review and Herald.