p. 10 | Weekly Rest Day Law by G. L. Tufts

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

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

Weekly Rest Day Law

By G. L. Tufts

THE "Signs of the Times" states upon its title-page that "we should be glad to hear from you either favorably or adversely." We assume that it accepts the principles of a free press and free speech. Then in recent numbers of the "Times" frequent reference has been made to the writer of this article and an editorial mentions him by name. Rev. J. O. Corliss speaks of him as "extremely biased and illiberal," and quotes from several of my speeches. For these reasons I ask for a hearing through the columns of your paper.

In the editorial columns of June 25, the astounding statement is made that our proposed weekly rest day law will make "loyalty to God a crime," by making Sunday labor on the part of Seventh-day Adventists and conscientious Jews a penal offense. Again it is stated that "you, through that Sunday law, demand that your seventh-day neighbor shall give up one whole day in the week of precious time — one sixth of all his income, sixteen and two thirds per cent of his earnings." Has not the editor been reading the articles he has published in recent issues of his own paper from the pen of Rev. Mr. Corliss in which the fact is mentioned that the proposed law would allow the Seventh-day Adventists to work on Sunday? Or does he publicly criticize a proposed measure and its author without informing himself upon the contents of said measure? We can not think that he intentionally misrepresented the facts to prejudice the minds of his readers. But for the information of all concerned permit me to say that the proposed law declares that its prohibitions against Sunday labor and business do not apply: "To any person who is a member of a religious society which observes some other day than Sunday as its day of worship and who actually keeps his place of business, or of his ordinary calling closed, and does not work for gain at his ordinary calling or at common labor on said day of worship." So the law will not prohibit an Adventist from working or attending to his regular business on Sundays. This surely protects you in your civil rights of working six days of the week. Any member of the Adventist Church who refrains from doing business on Saturday may conduct his business on Sunday as freely as on Monday. What more could you ask?

But says Rev. Mr. Corliss, this exemption clause which frees the Adventists from the Sunday prohibitions of the law would in time be repealed by the same means that the law was adopted. I sincerely believe that such a move would be a failure, that it would weaken the constitutionality of the law if it were done and that it would be bitterly opposed by the proponents of the bill. For one, I should strongly oppose it.

The writers in the "Signs of the Times" denounce our bill as "a religious law," "religious legislation," and "a union of church and state." Rev. Corliss argues that the exemption clause which protects the civil rights to Sunday labor on the part of those who for religious reasons observe another day of the week as their rest day proves it to be religious legislation. Then he plays on the feelings of his readers by declaring this would lead to a union of church and state and the persecutions of the Middle Ages. His imagination pictures the stake and its fiery flames and he hears the rumbling of the Juggernaut wheels. He is too clear a thinker to deny that this is sophistry and false reasoning to arouse the fears and prejudices of his hearers. If this reference to a "religious society" constitutes "religious legislation," then the law upon our statutes and in other states of the union to protect churches in their right of worship without being disturbed is surely religious legislation. Why does not Brother Corliss compass sea and land and devote his energies to the repeal of all such laws if religious legislation is such a calamity? Then there is the law passed a few years ago in California at the request of the churches, Catholic and Protestant, to exempt church property from taxation. If our proposed weekly rest law means a union of church and state, then a hundredfold more does this church property taxation law passed by the state legislature signify such a union. But I have yet to see a line in the "Signs of the Times" against this law. One would think that Brother Corliss would depict in glowing terms the Dark Ages upon us ready to devour the innocent followers of his faith. No, it is the province of government to protect human rights, both religious and civil. All this talk about "religious legislation" is simply for effect, to prejudice the minds of the unthinking crowd against a civil statute which is founded upon a natural law, and is an essential to the public health. Brother Corliss goes so far in his criticisms of the writer as to object to any law which has for its object the promotion of public morals, which is the highest function of civil law. So let not the readers of the "Signs of the Times" get frightened at a civil bill because it refers to a "religious society" which may observe Saturday as its rest day in order to protect them in their right to work on Sunday. If such a law could be construed to mean a union of church and state, then the courts would declare it unconstitutional and it would become a dead law. Why then do these ministers of the Adventist Church fight it so bitterly if they really believe it to be such an unlawful union?

We fully agree with our opponents that all citizens stand on an equality irrespective of their religious beliefs. And the Supreme Court of California has declared that "Sunday laws leave a man's religious belief and practises as free as the air that he breathes." So the proposed law in no way interferes with the religious liberties of those who under the false name of "Religious Liberty Association" are its chief foes. Again we agree with those who oppose us that every citizen is entitled to work six days of the week without being guilty of a penal offense. But we claim that it is not dealing honestly with the public when the "Signs of the Times" represents that our proposed bill will make it a crime for Adventists to work on Sundays. We also fully agree that there should not be any union of church and state as we have it in some countries, and that men can not be made religious by law. But the Federal Court of the United States unanimously said: "All sorts of restrictions are imposed upon the actions of men, notwithstanding the liberty which is guaranteed to each. It is liberty regulated by just and impartial laws — laws setting aside Sunday as a day of rest are upheld, not from any right of the government to legislate for the promotion of religious observance, but from its right to protect all persons from the physical and moral debasement which comes from uninterrupted labor. Such laws have always been deemed merciful and beneficent laws, especially to the poor and dependent, to the laborers in our factories and workshops and in the heated rooms of our cities; and their validity has been sustained by the highest courts of the states."

Again we claim that it is not dealing honestly with their readers when the ministerial correspondents of the "Signs of the Times" keep quoting, as they do in the issue of June 25th, the rejected opinion of Chief Justice Terry in the ex-parte Newman case as the present law of this state. In that same case of 1858, Justice Field dissented from the opinion given by Terry and one of his associates on the bench. And in 1861, three years after, the dissenting opinion of Justice Field was unanimously affirmed by that same highest court of our state in the ex-parte Andrews case. Likewise in other cases, as expressed by Chief Justice Morrison in behalf of the entire court in the ex-parte Burke case, in the following language: "The dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Field in the case of ex-parte Newman was adopted (in 1861), as fully and correctly defining the views of the judges then constituting the court. The question came before the court again in ex-parte Bird, and the Sunday law was again declared constitutional and the Andrews case affirmed. It will thus be seen that the departure from the line of authority was of short duration, and that the highest court of this state, at an early day in our history, returned to the well-beaten track of judicial authority on this interesting and frequently discussed question. It is too late now to indulge in another departure, even if I were inclined to set aside the great weight of judicial opinions by which Sunday laws have been sustained and enforced. But I feel no such inclination. My views are fully in accord with those expressed by other judges, and regarding the matter from a purely secular standpoint, the law is a proper and salutary one. It imposes no restraint upon the conscience of any member of the community; it exacts from no person the performance of any religious rites or ceremonies; it prescribes no religious faith or belief. . . . Sunday laws leave his religious belief and practises as free as the air he breathes. It only forbids the carrying on of certain kinds of business on a certain day of the week, and the day selected in deference to the feelings and wishes of a large majority of the community is that day commonly denominated the Christian sabbath or Sunday." Thus the law which has been a dead letter ever since 1861 is resurrected by the "Signs of the Times" and in the writings of ministers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church this corpse is paraded as the living law of to-day as held by the Supreme Court of our state. And the saddest feature is that these same ministers are well informed upon the above facts, but withhold them from their readers and deceive those who look to them for instruction. May we be forgiven if we misjudge them.

Another mistake in the same editorial is in denouncing Sunday laws as "un-American." My dear sir, is it not a fact that such laws have been upon the statutes of all states and with scarcely an exception are found in all codes to-day? Is it not a fact that Sunday is recognized as a non-judicial day by the Federal Constitution and by the constitutions of all the states? Does not our Congress and our state legislatures and our courts adjourn on Sundays? Do not ninety-nine per cent of our population regard Sunday as the national rest day? Did not our own Supreme Court declare that there is stronger concurrence on the validity of Sunday laws than on any other leading question "found in the history of American jurisprudence"? Are not the opponents of Sunday laws "un-American"?

Again you make a mistake in representing that this law, to be enacted by "the people of

California," is a law of the churches and for the churches. The majority of our citizens belong to no church. Every toiler is entitled as a natural right to a weekly rest day. The right of each to rest demands a law of rest for all. Those who oppose it are fighting against human rights and in behalf of human slavery to seven-day toil. We appeal to you in behalf of worn-out business men and weary laborers and in the name of the Carpenter of Nazareth to use the powers of your church for the overthrow of vice and not virtue.

Signed, G. L. TUFTS.

Berkeley, Cal., July 9, 1912.