THE PRINCIPLE OF THE BLAIR BILLS.
By C. P. B.
THE leading editorial in the Union Signal of June 20, is entitled "Sabbath Observance." It is a review of the work which had been accomplished in behalf of the Sunday sabbath during the past year. Regarding the opposition to the Blair Sunday-Rest bill, the Signal says:— "We believe that most of this opposition is based upon a misapprehension of what the Sunday-Rest bill really is. By some means it has been confounded with another bill of Senator Blair's, the Secular Educational bill, and this confounding has given an utterly false meaning to both." We think there must be some mistake about the misapprehension here referred to. It is perfectly true that the Sunday-Rest bill and the Educational Amendment resolution are two separate and distinct measures, though introduced by the same man. The Educational Amendment is a proposition to so amend the Constitution of the United States that "Each State in this Union shall establish and maintain a system of free public schools, adequate for the education of all children living therein, between the ages of six and sixteen years inclusive, in the common branches of knowledge, and in virtue, morality, and the principles of the Christian religion." The objection to this measure is, that if the Government should require the doctrines of the Christian religion to be taught in the public schools, it would follow of necessity that the Government must define the principles of the Christian religion, and this official definition of Christianity would then be the State creed, or the State religion. The Blair Sunday-Rest bill, though an entirely different measure, involves the same principle. It is entitled:— "A bill to secure to the people the enjoyment of the first day of the week, commonly known as the Lord's day, as a day of rest, and to promote its observance as a day of religious worship." The passage of such a law would certainly be religious legislation, and a step at least toward a union of Church and State. In 1828–29 Congress was asked to prohibit the carrying of mails on Sunday, and a petition to that effect was referred to the Committee on Post-offices and Post Roads. Hon. Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, was chairman of that committee, and submitted a report in behalf of the committee, recommending that Congress take no action in the premises. We can give in this connection but a single paragraph from this report, as follows:— "The petitioners . . . appear to be actuated by a religious zeal, which may be commendable if confined to its proper sphere; but they assume a position better suited to an ecclesiastical than a civil institution. They appear in many instances to lay it down as an axiom, that the practice [of carrying mail on Sunday] is a violation of the law of God. Should Congress, in legislative capacity, adopt the sentiment, it would establish the principle that the Legislature is a proper tribunal to determine what are the laws of God. It would involve a legislative decision on a religious controversy, and on a point in which good citizens may honestly differ in opinion without disturbing the peace of society, or endangering its liberties. If this principle is once introduced, it will be impossible to define its bounds." This is the whole matter in a nut-shell. The petitioners were actuated then, even as the petitioners for the Sunday-Rest bill are actuated now, by a religious zeal, or rather, by a religious regard for the first day of the week, and congressional action in the matter now would involve, even as it would have involved then, "legislative decision on a religious controversy." And it is just as true now as it was then, that "if this principle is once introduced, it will be impossible to define its bounds." The "misapprehension" of which the Union Signal complains, does not exist. In fact, whatever471misapprehension there is, is wholly on the part of those who fail to see the same principle involved in these two measures. They both involve the principle of congressional interference in religious matters. This is why they are classed together by their opponents, and it is why they must always stand or fall together. C. P. B.