A Washington Mass Meeting.
The mass meeting or "grand rally to discuss Sunday legislation in the District of Columbia," as it was advertised, followed close upon the publication of the open letter to the clergy, being held on the evening of December 28, in the new Pythian Temple. The meeting, which was fairly well attended, was addressed by six or seven of the leading Adventist ministers, some of the topics being, "History Repeating Itself in the United States," "The Sabbath on the Continent [Europe]," "Sunday Legislation in the District of Columbia," and "The Logic of Sabbath Legislation." In the course of his introductory remarks, Mr. K. C. Russell, chairman of the meeting and head of the Adventist "Religious Liberty Bureau," said: The chief reason which has prompted those who have made the call for this mass meeting is the danger that threatens the civil and religious rights of our citizens, because of an organized effort of some representative people in our midst to secure legislation on religious questions, especially on the subject of Sunday observance. It is true that this movement is not confined to this city, for it is becoming universal and world-wide. The storm center, however, is here at our nation's capital, for the promoters have plainly expressed their desire and intention to bring influence and pressure to bear upon the Congress of the United States to enact a Sunday law for the District of Columbia, knowing full well that when it is committed to Sunday legislation in the District of Columbia, it will be an easy task to secure a national Sunday law which would result in giving effect to the state Sunday laws. Last spring two Sunday bills were introduced into Congress, and they succeeded in getting one past by the House of Representatives, which is now pending its third reading in the Senate. These bills were sprung upon the citizens by these religio-political enthusiasts in such a quiet way that it was impossible to secure a public hearing. It can readily be seen by every lover of liberty and right that it is high time to sound a warning before we find ourselves again in the shackles of religious tyranny and persecution that has been the scourge that has blackened the history of the past. This movement should be opposed, on the ground that it is both uncivil and unchristian. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This principle was engrafted into the Constitution by the fathers of our country, who understood something of these things that threaten us to-day, as they were just emerging from an age of religious intolerance and oppression. It would seem that these words of this amendment were inspired, for they are in sweet accord with the language of our Saviour, "Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's." This statement of Christ's forever divorces the church from the state, and, if regarded by man, there never would be any legislation upon the Sabbath question, for the Sabbath does not belong unto Cæsar, but unto God, and should not be rendered unto or through Cæsar, but unto God and to Him alone. "The logic of Sabbath legislation" was presented thus by Mr. W. A. Colcord, secretary of the Adventist "Religious Liberty Bureau:" Legislation on the part of civil government means compulsion. Sabbath legislation, therefore, means compulsory Sabbath observance. The Sabbath is religious. Sabbath legislation, therefore, means religious legislation. Putting the two thoughts together, Sabbath legislation means compulsory religious legislation. The Sabbath institution being religious, to establish a certain day by law as the Sabbath, must consequently mean the establishment of religion by law, to that extent at least. Sabbath legislation, therefore, means a religious establishment; in other words, a union of church and state. Sunday laws are needed, it is urged, in order that laboring men who wish to keep Sunday may do so without "diminution of wages or loss of employment." But if those who observe Sunday need a law compelling all others to observe the day, then by parity of reasoning, those who observe any other day need a law requiring all others to observe that day. And the state can not grant such a law to one class and deny it to another, without enacting class legislation and making an unjust distinction between its citizens. But the truth is, no class needs such a law. Every such law is a selfish, unjust, un-Christian thing. Sunday laws, therefore, give preference by law to a certain class of citizens, and are, therefore, class as well as religious legislation. One of the speakers, who has recently returned to this country, after several years' stay in Europe, pointed out that in Europe, both present conditions and past history show that where Sunday observance is most guarded by law, it is least beneficial to the people, being most devoted to the degrading pleasures and revelries for which the compulsory idleness not only affords an opportunity, but induces. "Legislation makes Sunday observance worse, not better," declared the speaker. On the day following this mass meeting, reports of it, with substantial quotations from some of the addresses, appeared in the Washington dailies. A few days before, a representative of the Washington Times interviewed Mr. Russell on the subject, and quoted him, in part, as follows in that paper: The real issue in this Sunday-law crusade for the District of Columbia, does not appear in the public announcements of the proposed campaign. The avowed design of the International Reform Bureau is to secure a District Sunday law, and thus prepare the way to have Congress enact a national Sunday law, and thus give effect to the state Sunday laws. To secure this end they are seeking the aid of the clergy, and lobbying Congress on every occasion. All must see that such legislation is dangerous, for it means nothing less than a union of church and state, and is in flagrant contradiction to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.