CONGRESS LEGISLATES THE THIRD TIME IN BEHALF OF "SABBATH" OBSERVANCE.
By John Bradley
[By John Bradley, editor Sentinel of Liberty.] TWELVE years ago the Congress of the United States committed itself to an evil and dangerous precedent and principle. It concerned itself with and legislated upon the religious matter of "sabbath" observance. This was done in making an appropriation from the national treasury for the Columbian Exposition, at Chicago. A Sunday-closing proviso was placed in the bill in the interests of the "sabbath" and "sabbath" observance. This action was in response to the wishes, demands, and threats of that portion of the religious element of the nation which would have the religious Sunday enforced by law; and the record shows that the religious motive and purpose of the religious element wielded the controlling influence in the matter. That action was historic, for in taking it the Congress of the United States for the first time in its history legislated in the interests of the "sabbath," and upon the matter of "sabbath" observance, thus committing itself to the evil and thoroughly un-American and un-constitutional principle of religious legislation. And the precedent established in 1892 is proving itself to have been a precedent indeed for all similar cases. It is now practically certain that no very large exposition appropriation can be made by Congress without a proviso requiring Sunday-closing or "sabbath" observance on the part of the exposition to which the appropriation is made. The second instance of such legislation was in connection with the appropriation to the Louisiana Purchase Exposition at St. Louis, and now the third has come in connection with the appropriation of $2,000,000 for the Lewis and Clark Centennial Exposition, to be held at Portland, Ore. On February 8 the bill authorizing this appropriation came up for consideration in the Senate, and among the amendments proposed by the committee having the bill in charge was the following:— SEC. 27. That no machinery shall be operated on said exposition grounds on a Sunday for the purpose of display, and all places of amusement within the inclosure of the exposition grounds shall be closed on every Sunday during the period that such exposition shall be held. Provision shall be made by those in charge of the exposition grounds for the holding of devotional exercises and sacred concerts on the grounds on Sundays. Senator Platt, of Connecticut, at once moved that the following be substituted for the amendment proposed by the committee, and announced that he would ask for "the yeas and nays" on his motion:— That as a condition precedent to the payment of any and all appropriations made in this act, the corporation in charge of the exposition shall contract with the Secretary of the Treasury to keep the gates closed on Sundays during the entire period of the exposition. The first amendment would, of course, permit the opening of the exposition grounds to visitors on Sunday, while the second, like that adopted with regard to the St. Louis Exposition, would not only require the complete Sunday-closing of the exposition, but would also, as a safeguard to that end, require the management to enter into a contract with the Secretary of the Treasury to do as a condition precedent to obtaining the appropriation, or any part of it. This is a feature which the first Sunday-closing enactment did not possess, and is one which decidedly fortifies the Sunday-closing requirement. A feature of considerable significance, which has not appeared in either of the former enactments, is the requirement in the first amendment that "provision shall be made . . . for the holding of devotional exercises and sacred concerts on the grounds on Sundays." Altho Congress has twice committed itself to the precedent and principle of such legislation, it is evident that the thoroughly ominous day has not yet come when all the national legislators are ready to acquiesce in that precedent and principle. It is a pleasure to report that, before the final action was taken in this third instance of the enactment of legislation in behalf of "sabbath" observance by the highest legislative body of the nation, a discussion took place during which the very improper and unconstitutional character of the two amendments in question was emphasized. And as this matter of congressional dealing with the matter of Sunday or "sabbath" observance is one of special importance, and one in which every person who has any appreciation of what is involved must have a lively interest, we will present here the pertinent portions of this discussion, quoting, of course, from the Congressional Record. First is a statement by Senator Fulton, who spoke for the committee having charge of the bill:— Let me explain our position, Mr. President. You will observe that the committee amendment requires all the machinery to be closed down and all places of amusement to be closed. It provides for religious exercises and sacred concerts being held within the inclosure on Sundays. This question has been discussed very widely in the city of Portland and throughout the State of Oregon. Almost unanimously the people favor the amendment proposed by the committee. There are some who are opposed to it, and favor the proposition suggested by the senator from Connecticut—a few of the churches; but the churches and religious organizations are divided on the proposition, quite a number of the leading church societies are strongly in favor of the proposition reported by the committee. Mr. Bailey—I can not quite understand why this Congress shall prescribe that anybody anywhere shall conduct religious exercises. I presume there are a number of churches in Portland, and I presume that both the inhabitants of that city and the visitors there can easily attend their churches, and no doubt they will do so. I not only am opposed to the amendment of the senator from Connecticut, which proposes to close the gates of this exposition against people who must work six days in the week, and would like to take their wives and children and go into that exposition on the seventh day, but I am opposed to inserting into a law of Congress any requirement that anybody shall be compelled to hold religious exercises of any kind. . . . I believe as devoutly as anybody in churches; I believe in the propriety of religious exercises; but I do not believe they ought to be held under the requirements of Congress. Mr. Platt (of Connecticut)—Mr. President, this matter has come up unexpectedly, and so I have not had time to examine the law which provided for the Chicago Exposition, and the law which provided for the Louisiana Purchase Exposition; but I desire to say that in the law which provided for the Chicago Exposition, a clause similar to that which has been proposed by the committee for the partial closing of this exposition on Sundays was enacted. It was provided that the machinery should not be in operation, but when it came to the St. Louis Exposition, substantially the amendment which I have proposed was offered and was enacted and made a part of that bill.
. . . Congress provided in the St. Louis Exposition bill that the gates should not be opened on Sundays; and I think Congress ought not to recede from that proposition. I do not propose to discuss the matter at length. There is something to be said on both sides of the question; but I think that Congress, once having taken that stand, ought not to recede from it, and I desire to have the yeas and nays on my amendment. Mr. Bailey—I am disposed to sermonize on this question, using the particular phase of it which now presents itself as a text. One senator wants Congress to enact a Sunday-closing law in a State of the Union, and another senator proposes that we shall have sacred concerts under the auspices and command of the Federal Congress. Independently of an exposition, no senator would suggest for a moment that a request or resolution of the Federal Congress, proposing either, would receive the slightest consideration. But our jurisdiction once attaching by this, as I believe wrongful application, or, I will say, this unwise application of the public money, then we proceed to provide for religious ceremonies, the observance of the "sabbath," and a number of other things, wholly foreign to the province of the Federal Government. I myself believe that we could safely leave it to the State of Oregon to say whether the exposition shall be opened or closed on Sundays. If they are entitled to this help from the Federal Congress, then it comes with bad grace that the General Government shall take them by the throat and compel them to comply with our requirements, rather than leave them to comply with the requirements of the State that created the corporation that is to hold the exposition. I do not know just how religiously inclined they are in Oregon, but I take it that the senator from Connecticut and the senator from Texas, if we are fortunate enough to visit the exposition, could manage to get along during our brief stay there under any system which it pleases the people of Oregon to live under all the while. It looks to me as the very history of this provision, as traced by the senator from Connecticut, serves to warn us. We first began at Chicago, providing that there should be no exhibits on Sunday. That matter might have safely been left to the State of Illinois, but Congress in its wisdom took it under its own control. We proceed along this line for ten years. Then comes the St. Louis appropriation, and then the Congress not only says there shall be no government exhibits open to inspection on Sundays, but that the gates shall be closed. Then when we reach Portland, in Oregon, in this good year of our Lord 1904, we are confronted with a proposition to require religious exercises and sacred concerts. Thus the matter grows apace, and these local communities, in order to get federal aid, in the shape of money, are submitting their local affairs to the control of the General Government. So far as I am concerned, I do not think the religious people of this country are looking to Congress to protect their religion. Their religion has grown and spread its blessed teachings all over this land without the aid of the laws of Congress, and without even the aid of the Legislatures of the several States. The religious sentiment of this country makes no such demand as this upon the American Congress. It does not require, indeed it will not sanction, a law of Congress that assumes that the people of these communities can not be trusted to spend their Sabbath days in the proper observance of their religious duties. . . . It is not generous, to say the least, to contribute something toward the assistance of this enterprise and then to compel it to submit its control in this regard to the laws of Congress. Senator Mitchell, of Oregon, who was especially interested in securing the passage of the bill, had already moved to strike from the last sentence of the committee's amendment the words "devotional exercises and," which motion had been agreed to, and at this point he moved to strike out the whole sentence, which was agreed to after Senator Stewart, of Nevada, had made these very appropriate and pertinent remarks:— Mr. President, I hope the action of the senator from Oregon will prevail, and I presume it will, but I should like to remark here that I think it inappropriate for Congress to enact any legislation in regard to the religious observance of the Sabbath, or any other matters pertaining to religion. It was the most fortunate condition that ever occurred on earth that in the formation of our Constitution religious freedom was ordained. The people of the different colonies came here as believers in the creeds of various denominations. They were very radical in their beliefs, and it was many years before the residents of some of the colonies could even visit the others. When, finally, the conflict came with Great Britain, the colonists united for the purpose of general defense, and after they had succeeded in the Revolution it was found necessary, in order to preserve the government, that they form a Constitution. But so jealous were they of their particular creeds—for there were different creeds in each of the colonies—that they left out any reference to creed in the Constitution and provided that each individual might worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. I believe that idea has done more for liberty, for religion, for progress, and for civilization than any other provision of the Constitution, or any other proposition that was ever made in this or any other country. In traveling through Europe last year and some years before I met the people there alluding to our country and the blessing of the principle that here prevails, that all people may worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. I am utterly opposed to assuming any jurisdiction over the consciences of men, or regulating their religious principles by the General Government; because our position on that question has permeated the entire world; it is world-wide; it is going on revolutionizing the bad practices of tyranny everywhere, and the people of the whole world long for that glorious privilege. All interference in the matter of religion having been removed from the province of the General Government, by common consent in forming the Constitution, I agree with the senator from Texas, and am old-fashioned enough to wish to have all allusion to Sunday-closing or religion left out of the bill, and let the States and local communities regulate such matters as they see proper. When the roll was called, Senator Platt's amendment was adopted by a vote of 29 to 17, there being 44 members of the Senate absent at that time. At this writing the bill has not yet come up for consideration in the House, but of course when it does, the Sunday-closing, or "sabbath observance," amendment will be passed. And then, so far as its being followed in similar cases is concerned, it may be9considered that the Congress of the United States has become thoroughly committed to the evil and dangerous precedent and principle first established and adopted twelve years ago; for it will then have committed itself in the matter for the third time. And let no one suppose that this will go no farther than the Sunday-closing of expositions. It is not the nature of such a precedent and principle to remain confined to the comparatively mild form in which they first gain a footing. The taking up and legislating upon the matter of "sabbath" observance by Congress, even tho it be in the mild and somewhat indirect form in which it has been hitherto, is something that is pregnant with very grave and lamentable consequences.