EARLY in the present session of Congress a bill "to further protect the first day of the week as a day of rest in the District of Columbia," by making it unlawful, with certain exceptions, "for any person to keep open any place of business or maintain a stand for the sale of any article or articles for profit during Sunday," and for "any public playing of football or baseball, or any other kind of playing, sports, pastimes, or diversions, disturbing the peace and quiet of the day, to be practised by any person or persons within the District of Columbia," or "any building operations or work upon railroad construction upon said day," was introduced by Representative Allen, of Maine, who no doubt did so at the request of persons interested in having such a law enacted. Those persons are the agents of "National Reform" and the representatives of local trade and business organizations interested in securing Sunday closing in their respective lines. This bill was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, but has not been heard of since, and it seems unlikely that it will have consideration during this session of Congress. But evidently the fact that the passage of this general Sunday law is somewhat doubtful has led the retail grocers' and butchers' associations to attempt to secure what they desire by means of another measure. On February 4 Representative Wadsworth introduced a measure entitled, "A bill requiring certain places of business in the District of Columbia to be closed on Sunday," which reads as follows:—
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that it shall be unlawful for any person in the District of Columbia to sell or to offer for sale, or to keep open any place of business for the sale or delivery of, any groceries or fruits or meats or vegetables or other provisions on Sunday, except that from the first day of June until the first day of October meats sold prior to Sunday may be delivered at any time before ten o'clock of the morning of that day. Any person who shall violate the provisions of this Act shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than fifty dollars for the first offense, and for each subsequent offense by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the jail of the District of Columbia for a period of not less than one month nor more than three months, or by both fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.
SEC. 2. That all prosecutions for violations of this Act shall be in the police court of the District of Columbia and in the name of the District of Columbia.
This measure is very similar to legislation which grocers and butchers have secured or are endeavoring to secure elsewhere, altho it is to be doubted if the penalty provided has been made quite as rigorous anywhere else.
The first important step in the adoption of a law for the District of Columbia is its consideration and approval by the district commissioners, and to the commissioners the above bill was promptly referred by the House Committee on the District of Columbia. A hearing on the measure took place before the commissioners on February 16. A committee and attorneys representing the Retail Butchers' and Meat Dealers' Protective Association and the Retail Grocers' Protective Association, and a representative of the Retail Clerks' Protective Association, appeared in support of the bill, but "no one appeared to contest the bill." Speeches in favor of the measure were made by Attorney E. P. B. Sands, representing the butchers; Attorney Charles E. Diggs, representing the grocers, and C. A. Pfau, representing the clerks. Attorney Sands stated that he "represented 130 men engaged in business in the District who are unanimous in their support of the Sunday-closing law." He declared that "unless a uniform Sunday-closing law is in force, the persons who refuse to keep their places of business open on Sunday will be placed at a disadvantage in the competition for business." The speeches were all to the effect that the butchers and grocers and their employees are a hard-working class, and should be allowed to observe Sunday as a day of rest.
Every grocer and butcher and clerk in the District of Columbia is now not only allowed to observe Sunday as a day of rest so far as the law is concerned, or can properly be concerned, but is thoroughly protected by the law against all interference in so doing that it is proper for the law to take cognizance of. What the butchers, grocers, and clerks who seek the passage of this measure are after is, not that they may be allowed to observe Sunday as a day of rest, for they now have that right, and are protected in it, but that they may be allowed to prevent others, in their respective lines of business, from not observing Sunday as a day of rest—that they may be allowed to compel others to observe Sunday as a day of rest. Such a demand is opposed to the object of public legislation, which is the equal protection and maintenance of the rights of all—and special favor to some at the expense of the rights of others. Every citizen has the right to observe Sunday as a day of rest, and every citizen has the equal right not to observe the day; but no citizen and no aggregation of citizens has the right to have anybody compelled to observe Sunday as a day of rest or compelled not to so observe it. The business of the law is to protect both rights, and not to interfere with or prohibit either.
At the close of the hearing the commissioners stated that they would give careful consideration to the arguments presented, and would announce their decision on the matter at an early date. It is not unlikely that this measure will receive their approval, and be enacted into law by Congress. It is very much to be regretted that, as stated by the Evening Star, "no opponents of the bill were present at the hearing, apparently, and no arguments were presented in opposition to the measure." This fact will no doubt contribute much toward the approval and passage of the measure.
