THEY ARE RELIGIOUS BLUE LAWS
By J. O. C.
Recent Occurrences of Intolerance in the United States — Do We Want Laws That Make Such Things Possible?
THERE has come to hand a pamphlet from the secretary of state, containing a list of the forty-eight amendments and statutes to be voted upon in the coming November election in California. On page 84 appear the arguments pro and con regarding the proposed law demanding one day of rest in seven. In the affirmative argument (?) is found this statement about Sunday laws throughout the United States: "No one has been so bold as to claim that in so doing [making these laws] religious or blue laws are being forced upon the people."618 IMPRISONED FOR THEIR RELIGION
Had the author of that statement been well informed, he would not have made it. Let him read of the persecutions in Eastern and Southern states for Sunday labor during the last twenty-five years, and he will learn that within that time no less than seventy-six Seventh-day Adventists were made to suffer imprisonment, or serve terms in the chain-gang. Such usage was endured in Tennessee, Maryland, Arkansas, and also in Canada. The names of most of these sufferers, as well as their terms of imprisonment, can be readily furnished. But it may be asked, Was it understood that such prosecutions were for the violation of religious statutes? Let court statements during some of these trials answer the query. In the trial of three men in Paris, Tennessee, the sheriff remarked, as he turned over his prisoners to the court, that they all seemed very conscientious in their course. To this the judge replied, "Let them educate their consciences by the laws of Tennessee." Again, in the case of the state versus King, another prosecution for working on Sunday was before the Supreme Court of Tennessee in 1890. This trial was incited by a vigilance committee of church-members, all sworn to uphold Sunday observance, in opposition to the observance of another day of rest. Any others in that region, except seventh day observers, hunted and fished on Sunday as they chose, and in many instances did common labor on that day without fear of molestation. In the prosecution of Mr. King, the attorney-general said, among other things, regarding interference with rights of conscience, as introduced by the defendant's attorney: "No, sir; away with all such foolishness, and everything of the sort! I do not care anything about the Adventists, whether they are right or not. When they come here they must walk up to the rack, and eat the same fodder that our folks eat." THE LANGUAGE OF INTOLERANCE
Such language tastes strongly enough of religious persecution; and Mr. King was persecuted to his death, over this one point of Sunday labor. It was the only offense. This makes an act which is perfectly legitimate on six days of the week, indictably wrong when performed on Sunday. It is therefore not the deed done that constitutes the affront, but the day on which it is done. Why, then, single out a certain day on which an act performed is accounted wrong, when the same deed may be done with impunity on every other day of the week? It can be for no other reason than that Sunday is considered sacred time, and the law is demanded to continue it so. This fastens the conviction that all prosecution for Sunday labor is for religious reasons; and no one can well deny this, because all Sunday legislation, and all prosecutions for Sunday labor, in the history of this nation, have grown from religious regard for Sunday as a day of rest. Come, then, and let us be reasonable in our course of conduct, and allow others the same right of choice we claim for ourselves. J. O. C.