A Reply to Mr. Tufts by J. O. Corliss

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · Aug 6, 1912

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 39, No. 30.

A Reply to Mr. Tufts

By J. O. Corliss

My attention has been called to a manuscript in hand designed for publication in the "Signs of the Times." In the aforesaid manuscript prepared by the gentleman whose name appears in the title of this article, some rather severe criticisms occur, which seem to call for an explanation from myself regarding statements found in articles contributed by me to the "Signs of the Times."

His strictures, as will be seen from his contribution in this number of the paper, begin with the charge that I called him "extremely biased and illiberal." The fact is, that in the six articles which I contributed to a series on "California and Religious Liberty" which were printed in the "Signs" from May 21 to June 25, not one mention of Mr. Tufts's name appears. However, in my article which was given in the issue of June 18, there appears in the second paragraph from its head the words quoted by Mr. Tufts. But these words follow a recital of legislative history wherein Sunday laws had been refused. Then follow the words: "Notwithstanding the obvious wisdom of such a course, a few extremely biased and illiberal persons have been determined," etc.

When that was written, Mr. Tufts was not particularly in mind, but the statement was made to cover the general course pursued by those engaged to secure Sunday laws. If in examining his own connection with the movement, the gentleman recognized the accuracy of the picture drawn, and applied the statement to himself, it does not seem just the thing to charge another with making a personal thrust.

Reference is made by Mr. Tufts to a statement that in case a Sunday law obtains in California "loyalty to God" will be made a crime. In my article I did not put the matter in just that form, tho what I said implies the same. The conclusion was not my own, but was part of an opinion handed down from the California Supreme Court by Justice Henshaw as late as 1895. This is what he said:

"It is not easy to see where or how this law protects labor from the unjust exactions of capital. A man's constitutional liberty means more than his personal freedom. It means, with many other rights, his right freely to labor, and to own the fruits of his toil. It is a curious law for the protection of labor which punishes the laborer for working. Yet that is precisely what this law does. The laboring barber, engaged in a most respectable, useful, and cleanly pursuit, is singled out from the thousands of his fellows in employments, and told that, willy-nilly, he shall not work upon holidays and Sundays after twelve o'clock noon. His wishes, tastes, or necessities are not consulted. If he labors he is a criminal. Such protection to labor carried a little further would send him from the jail to the poorhouse."

It follows from this that any one who insists on loyally keeping God's Sabbath, the seventh day, and then works on Sunday, will be counted a criminal in the eyes of the proposed Sunday law, unless he is a bona fide "member of a religious society which observes some other day than Sunday as its day of worship."

In other words, the proposed law will not permit a person observing Saturday as the Sabbath to work on Sunday unless he joins a Sabbath-keeping church, however loyal to God he may be. Suppose one lives isolated from such a church, and no opportunity is presented for

him to unite with such a body, is not his loyalty to God in keeping the true Sabbath, counted a crime? Even so, the proposed law is against conscience. What right has any law to enforce church-membership upon one in order to avoid some stipulated penalty it provides? Is not this coming perilously near to a union of church and state? How many more steps are needed in the same direction to effect a complete union of the two? Let our Sunday-law advocates answer.

A Reply to Mr. Tufts

(Continued from page 11)

My position on the proposed exemption clause for seventh-day observers is next criticized. I did state that the same power by which the exemption might be granted, could just as easily repeal that part of the law. No one can honestly deny this. In fact it has been done in the state of Arkansas, when bigoted souls desired to punish those who differed with them in religious faith. Besides, the proposed law for California provides for just such an exigency to be repeated. For instance, it says: "But provided, however, that the above exemptions, letters 'a' to 'v,' or any of them, SHALL NOT PRECLUDE THE ENACTMENT OF ANY MORE RESTRICTIVE LAW OR ORDINANCE by the legislature, or by any county, city and county, city or town, nor shall they nullify any more restrictive law or ordinance now or hereafter in force." (Capitals mine.)

Just think of this, you who have been made to believe that the proposed Sunday law is so mild and generous in its provisions. At first you might buy luxuries, such as ice-cream, confectionery, mild drinks, tobacco and cigars. Dealers in these lines would be permitted to keep open shop, but one dealing in life's necessities, such as groceries, etc., would be fined anywhere from ten dollars to two hundred dollars for the first offense, and for a second offense a thirty-day sentence in jail would be imposed in addition to the fine.

But any city, town, or county could vote these exemptions at once invalid within its precincts, and prohibit any work of any kind on Sunday, wherever the prejudices of the majority could command the influence to do so. Then it would not matter how carefully one observed some other day than Sunday, or whether he were a member of some society that did regard some other day. Do not be lulled into seeming security by the present form of the proposed measure, so long as it provides for local districts to enlarge upon it by severe restrictions after it becomes law. Please notice also that while provision is thus made for any voting district to add to the law's restrictions, none of these are to be permitted to "nullify" or cancel any restriction the law may contain upon its passage, "nor shall they nullify any more restrictive law or ordinance now or hereafter in force." Let all look well to this portion of the measure, and carefully study its possibilities for evil, before committing themselves to it favorably.

"Brother Corliss" WOULD "compass sea and land" to work against the exemption of church property from taxes if it involved personal liberty in any degree. Let no one mistake the question at issue. A civil law which seeks to restrain personal, God-given liberty is what I and my associates oppose, and nothing more. Let no one cast dust before the eyes of the public by raising false issues like the taxation of church property, which brings no money income to its possessors. The issue before California in the proposed law is whether men and women are to be forced to rest on a religious day whether they will or not.

The last item I care to notice of the gentleman's strictures on my contributions to the "Signs" is that in which he claims that I, among others, am not honest in presenting the opinion of Chief Justice Terry, rendered in 1858, as the "present law of the state." The gentleman could not have followed very closely the line of argument used, as to the point of Supreme Court decisions. Had he done so, he would have noticed that Justice Field's contention was covered, and that due weight was given it. We have never quoted Justice Terry's opinion except for one reason, and that is to show how logically he dealt with the case.

I fear, however, that the same careful consideration has not been given by Mr. Tufts to the opinion handed down from the Supreme Court by Justice Henshaw as late as 1895, which was concurred in by the full court. As will be seen by this late opinion, already noticed in this article, Justice Field's opinion was completely reversed, and the later opinion has never since been questioned by the State Supreme Court. It is therefore not true that the "Signs" writers upon these Supreme Court opinions, withhold the facts from their readers, "and deceive those who look to them for instruction." Is it not more nearly true when one withholds the fact of the 1895 opinion from his readers, in order to make it appear that an opinion rendered in 1861 is now "the law of the state," that the guilt of deception rather attaches to that side of the controversy?

I hold no personal grudge against Mr. Tufts. He is one for whom Christ died, and as such I have an interest in his salvation. I do, however, feel sorry to know that he has taken upon himself to champion a cause that is sure to prove a disaster to society, and a blot upon the Christian religion. May the good Lord speed the right in the controversy now on, and open the eyes of all to the true nature of its foundation.

J. O. CORLISS.