PRIOR to 1850 California was an obscure portion of the western hemisphere. A few Englishmen and Americans had wandered thither between the years 1810 and 1830; and at the latter date there were thought to be 500 foreigners on the west side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. However, upon the discovery of gold at the old Sutter mill, on the American River, early in 1848, thousands of migrators found their way to the gold-fields of the Pacific slope.
The peculiar location of California, with no overland public conveyance, so isolated the first settlers of the State, that their relation to the eastern portion of the country was much the same as the whole American continent sustained for some generations to the countries of Europe. They therefore were an independent, happy, liberty-loving people, care-free about the religious faith or practice of their neighbors. All they asked or offered was justice between man and man, and good fellowship throughout the various communities.
But in time many wealth seekers came who, having been affiliated with religious societies in their eastern homes, soon conceived the idea of regulating society after the manner of their earlier associations. In such attempt they met an element at variance with their notion of a general weekly rest, and therefore set about to establish their ideal by civil law. This they succeeded in bringing about in 1858, but were doomed to disappointment in the results it secured. Instead of producing peace and quietness in the various settlements, bitterness and discontent abounded.
A Political Question
In fact the question of enforced Sunday observance became one of the great political issues of the times, and sentiment for and against the case became more pronounced and intense until the two great political parties made it a point in dispute at the November election of 1882. The Republican Party, which had till that time held the State governorship, inserted a plank in its platform, pledging itself to maintain the Sunday law.
The Democratic convention meeting in San Jose pledged that party “to oppose the enactment of all Sunday laws,” and it also definitely demanded “the repeal of those laws” then existing. The introduction of such a plank in the party platform, at such a time, when the party was so anxious to win the governorship for General George Stoneman, the champion of Democratic faith for that year, threw the convention into consternation. Mr. Outram, of Alameda, pleaded that it would cost them the church vote, and throw a firebrand into their ranks.
A “Living Issue”
Replying to this, Judge Terry called the question a “living issue,” and declared himself tired of hearing it said that the Democratic Party were too great cowards to meet it openly. It involved, he said, principles higher than any other embraced in the platform, in that it involved obedience to the Federal and State unions, which he believed had been violated by the maintenance of the Sunday law of the State. Referring to the position of the courts on the point that the enforcement of a “religious holiday” was but a “police regulation,” to restrain men from premature failing health from overwork, he said that it was “a parcel of nonsense put by the judges.”
Mr. Whipple, of Sonoma, characterized the Sunday law as “sumptuary legislation,” and averred that it was a “firebrand” as it then stood, and he advocated the nomination of good men for the legislature, that the whole matter might be properly tested by the people. Said he, “Let the Democratic Party stand where it always has been—an opponent to too much government, and against everything that hampers the just liberties of the citizens.”
Mr. Grady, of Fresno, said that the no-Sunday plank was “calculated to establish the grand principles that the Democratic Party ought always to adhere to—that a man has a right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. . . . We can not drive people to the worship of God, and it ought not to be done in that way.”
Sunday Law Abolished
The resolution to abolish the Sunday law from the statutes, was by vote made a plank of the Democratic platform by an overwhelming majority; and in the election following, General Stoneman was elected governor, with a Democratic legislature, which was the first Democratic administration the State ever had. One of the first bills to be acted on favorably in the ensuing legislature, which convened in January, 1883, was the one which abolished the Sunday law of the State.
It is well to refer here to a point on which some question might arise, which is this: Were not the men in the San Jose convention who advocated the repeal of the State Sunday law all non-religious?—Far from it. A number of those who stood for the repeal acknowledged themselves church-members, but endorsed the justice of the principles which their advocacy represented. To this day there are good, loyal church-members with the same generous leaning toward the granting of equal rights to all, who would regret to see the statutes of the State burdened with any such religious legislation, because they believe that religious observances should be regulated alone by individual conscience, and not by civil legislation.
The Law Not Needed
But was Sunday any less regarded following the repeal of the Sunday law in 1883? On this point it will be well to listen to what the Rev. W. F. Crafts, of Washington, D. C., general superintendent of the International Reform Bureau, said in his book on Sunday laws, published in 1885, only two years after the repeal of the Sunday law. On page 94, the author says:6“Both laymen and ministers say that even in California the Sabbath is, on the whole, better observed, and Christian services better attended, than five years ago.”
Let all think for a little what this statement from one of the chief Sunday law promoters means. He said in 1885, that Sunday, by general concession, was better observed, and Christian services were better attended, than five years before—that is, three years before the Sunday law was repealed. This, too, was acknowledged by “both laymen and ministers,” after an experience both with a Sunday law and without it. If, then, Sunday was better observed, and Christian services were better attended, without a Sunday law than with one, why (Continued on page 11)
Religious Liberty in California
(Continued from page 5) ask for, and fasten upon the people, a law compelling them to observe the Sunday whether they desire to do so or not? Why not, instead, let each have Christian liberty to act as he chooses in the matter, and then answer to God for his conduct, before whom his case can be righteously judged?
A Comparison
From the time of the repeal of the Sunday law until the present time, there has been a growing respect for Sunday by most citizens of California, notwithstanding the absence of a statute demanding its observance. Other States of the American Union have Sunday laws; but have these enactments elevated those States above California in moral station? Pennsylvania has carried on her statute-books a most rigid Sunday law for more than a century; but has this preserved inviolate the integrity of her citizens? Let the corrupt history of some of her leading politicians and cities answer. New York is another illustration to the purpose, where, in spite of the enforcement of Sunday laws, Tammany politics of the foulest kind have systematically robbed the citizens of that commonwealth seven days of every week. San Francisco in its most degraded condition was not so low in morals as have been some of the Sunday-rest cities of the puritanical East.
Neither Uncivil nor Irreligious
But why attempt to prevent those so disposed from working on Sunday? If any number in a given community should do business in a regular, peaceable way on Sunday, that does not in any way trench on the rights of those who desire to rest or to attend church services. There is nothing uncivil in the act of plowing, or sowing grain, or gathering fruit, or even riding on trains, or playing ball, on those days termed “working days.” What, then, can make such acts uncivil when performed on Sunday? Who
is willing to risk an answer? Being perfectly civil and proper acts on other days, they certainly can not be uncivil on Sunday, because there is not even a shadow of uncivility in any one of these acts.
Such things are not so much as irreligious. Religious people of every degree do all these things on other days than Sunday, and still remain very pious. Then what can have entered into these deeds when done on Sunday to make them irreligious or uncivil? The answer to these questions must of necessity be limited to a single proposition, and that is that a certain portion of the people, while not regarding these acts uncivil, or irreligious of themselves, yet because they regard Sunday as a religious day, believe—simply believe—that it is wrong to work on that day, but that the day should rather be devoted to rest and worship. Evade the point as one may, this is the only reason why a law is asked for to forbid such things.
A New Effort
This is to ask for a law to compel conformity to religious views and observances. It is the clergy of the State who have agitated this question almost constantly since the repeal of the Sunday law in 1883. Time and again they have been defeated before the legislature, but now having the advantage of the initiative, referendum, and recall, they insist on having a Sunday measure placed on the ballot to be voted upon at the next general election, hoping that the people will do for them what their legislative representatives have so sturdily refused to do.
That their demand is for a religious law, is seen in the fact that they propose to exempt from its demands and penalties those who religiously observe another day for the Sabbath. If they deny that their demand is a religious one, why do they propose to exempt some from the law's operation through a religious test? If such a law obtain, and a person be found working on Sunday, his right to do so will be disputed under the law. Should he claim the benefit of the exemption, the burden of proof would rest on him to prove that he religiously and regularly rested on another day. This, too, must be done to the satisfaction of a court of justice, and thus to that court would be given jurisdiction over religious observances and professions.
Toleration Not Liberty
Besides, such exemption for seventh-day observers would at most be mere toleration, which is not full religious liberty as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and the fundamental law of California. When the Constitution, or any of the laws it sustains, enter the realm of conscience, a union of Church and State has been, to all intents and purposes, consummated. If only civil results were expected from such laws, why exempt any from the penalties of the law, on the ground of conscientious belief? When every one, without exception, is required only to “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's,” and are left with their conscience, to “render unto God the things that are God's,” then the people will cease to demand laws in behalf of religious practises, and the church will no longer plead for civil power by which to enforce its ordinances and decrees upon unwilling citizens.
