California and Religious Liberty
By John Orr Corliss
[Mr. Corliss has been engaged in religious liberty work for many years in three continents, Europe, Australia, and America. He has appeared repeatedly before committees in Congress and in State legislatures. For several years past he has led the religious liberty forces in California. He has in every way studied the question from every side.] IV—California's Noble Stand against Religious Legislation
MANY attempts have been made by the clergy of California to have the Sunday law reinstated, since its abrogation in 1883. They have petitioned and lobbied to the best of their ability, but until this year of grace without satisfactory results. The State legislature in 1887 gave a decided negative answer to their appeals, and they met the same fate two years later. In 1890 they put forth desperate efforts in the way of circulating petitions in behalf of a law "forbidding all Sunday traffic and work," and "all coarse and noisy amusements," but providing two exceptions. One of these was in behalf of "works of necessity and mercy," and the other for "private work" done by those who "religiously" and "regularly" rested on another day of the week. To Revive Religious Legislation
But this petition met with no more favor at Sacramento than had other efforts, because the legislators there saw by the wording of the petition that it was an attempt to revive religious legislation. The motive was betrayed by the expression, "those who religiously and regularly observe another day." To except those and only those, from the penalty to be provided, who religiously observed another day, revealed to the lawmakers a religious test in a pretended civil statute, to enact which would commit the State to an expressed preference for and maintenance of one form of religion above all others, with a willingness merely to tolerate all others whose religion regularly forbade conformity. Since then, each legislative session, with very few exceptions, has been besieged by Sunday-law advocates in attempts to win retainers for their cause. These trials have been regular at the last three sessions of the legislature, but without success. At the session of 1907, nearly a score of religious deputies, including one bishop, an influential editor of a denominational paper, a lawyer of some local repute, and even a Jewish rabbi, all maintained, before the committee having in charge the Sunday rest bill, that it should by all means become a law of the State. A Step toward Church-and-State Union
Opposed to these were offered reasons why such a measure should not be placed among the California statutes. It was pointed out that the adoption of such a bill would be a long step toward the union of Church and State. Seventeen thousand petition signatures of voters against the passage of any bill of the kind were also presented, and hence the bill was adversely reported to the Assembly, and was lost. In 1909 two measures were up for consideration, one providing for a common law statute enforcing Sunday rest, and the other proposing an amendment to the Constitution which would incorporate the demand for Sunday rest in the fundamental law of the State. It was hoped that at least one of these would meet with favor, but more than thirty-eight thousand legal voters this time petitioned against any such legislation. Two hearings before two separate committees were also had by both proponents and opponents of the measures. The constitutional amendment measure first reached the Assembly through a minority report of one member of the committee having had it under consideration, and this one was the reputed author of the measure. It was lost in the Assembly by an overwhelming vote, and the member whose name it bore was reported to have afterward said, with assumed gaiety: "O, I don't care much anyway. I had no interest in the bill, and now that it is lost, I might as well tell you that it was a church movement all right." But those who heard his speech in its favor well remember that he denied the church's having any part in the matter, declaring that his action was entirely free from religious influence. But other members of the Assembly were not deceived in the matter so vigorously defended, and voted for California's strongest evidence that her people are liberty-loving, and indulgent toward each other. There is good reason to believe that the church was responsible for the movement, since before the bill came from the committee, the pastor at that time of the First Congregational Church of Sacramento, the Rev. W. H. G. Temple, called together in his church as many of the legislators as would respond to the summons, and reviewed the situation before them. Speaking to the question of the Sunday bill to come before them, Mr. Temple was reported to have said: "The question has been heatedly debated. You must disentangle argument from sophistry. It has been recognized for ages that man must have one day of rest. We do not stop harmless amusements. We ask for a day of rest. This is a Christian nation, founded on prayer. We are not Mohammedans, nor Jews, nor Buddhists. We offer religious freedom to all, but we have a right to demand that the ALIEN IN RELIGION SHALL CONFORM OUTWARDLY TO OUR CUSTOMS. When one branch of the Christian church, so small that it is insignificant, takes another day for Sunday, we have a right to make that sect conform to our practise." Then, as if he would startle his hearers into a tractable attitude, the preacher warmly and quite dramatically exclaimed: "Don't let us give up our God, or what expresses Him in our institutions. In the name of the wrecked lives adrift upon the ocean of despair; in the name of the shattered homes of the army of bleeding hearts; in the name of hopeful youth, of noble womanhood, and one day of peace and quiet, I ask you to see the truth and act by it." Evidently the preacher allowed himself to go too far in his unbounded enthusiasm. Those clear-headed, sensible legislators could see from his pose and ardor that his concern about the Sunday rest was more in the interest of the church than in behalf of laboring men. The thought expressed regarding the right of the church to make any minor sect conform to the practise of the dominating power in religious observances, was a certain indication of how far he would attempt to enforce his views upon all dissenters, were the power to do so, but once in his hands. It may be said that this particular preacher was an exception in rashness and bigotry, and that few would go to the lengths he marked out before the legislators. That may be true at present, and it is well that it is true; but even one little firebrand has been known to kindle so large a fire as to destroy large groups of homes, and sometimes many of their inmates. Likewise one such person of influence might inflame innocent minds to coöperate in a work of persecution which would gender hatred between sects, and destroy the peace and harmony of neighborhoods seven days in every week. These exceptional men are the very ones that should not be permitted by any law of the land to arouse base passions among others, and thus lead them to persecute those who, like themselves, are but exercising the right of personal belief. Having been creditably informed that preparation for a strong effort to secure a Sunday-rest law at the forthcoming legislature of 1911 was being made by religious leaders, the Pacific Religious Liberty Association secured in a month's time more than sixty-eight thousand signatures of voters to petitions against any religious legislation in that session. This fact became known to the legislators, and they therefore steadily refused to countenance any advances in that direction. The writer was quietly informed by members of the legislature that a Sunday-rest bill had been drafted, and that several members had been approached with a view to securing some sponsor for it in the Assembly. No one, however, was found who desired to risk his reputation for wisdom and sagacity by offering a bill of that nature, and consequently none was presented. One member did, however, on an alleged promise to his constituents, present a bill requiring barbers to close their business on Sunday. But at a hearing before the committee having the bill in hand, it was so clearly shown to be unconstitutional that the bill was not enacted into law. In consequence of this past loyalty of California's sons to the principles of equity and justice in government, California is yet without a Sunday law. The State has lost no respect thereby, either; for she has as many church steeples pointing skyward, and as many worshipers in her churches, in proportion to her inhabitants, as any other State in the American Union. It is a libel upon the good morals of California's citizens to call them pagans, as has been done publicly by Sunday-law advocates, because they have not consented to oblige themselves by law to do that which it is already their privilege to do, or not to do, as best pleases them.7 This last-named privilege is admitted by Sunday-law advocates, tho in demanding such a law they base their plea on their right to a day of rest. This was their principal ejaculation at committee hearings in 1909. Their leader was then asked if he had not a perfect right to rest on Sunday without a law compelling it. He was forced to admit that he had. Had he not a perfect right also to go to church, or stay away, without being forced to do so by law? Of course he had, but he was so completely unselfish as to be acting entirely in behalf of laboring men. But if it was his privilege and right to rest on Sunday, and go to church, or not, at will, and all without law compelling it, did not every other man have the same right as himself, if he chose to avail himself of his right? He could not truthfully deny such a proposition, and it is one so self-evident that every voter in California can readily grasp it. It is right and proper for everybody to worship God, but each should be left to do so in the way that justifies his own conscience, by which he will be held guilty or innocent in the great final accounting at Heaven's judgment-bar. All honor to the citizens of California for having thus far acted upon this principle of justice in relation to Sunday legislation.