A Constitutional Amendment.
By T.
Proposed Invasion of the Natural Rights of the Citizens of California.
ON Jan. 8, 1909, there was introduced in the assembly of the Legislature of California a proposed amendment to the constitution of this state, the leading portion of which reads: "The necessity of encouraging and fostering the observance of one day in seven as a day of rest is hereby recognized as essential to the welfare of the state, and to that end it is hereby provided: (1) That the keeping open of bars, saloons, race-courses, and coursing grounds on the first day of the week is prohibited; and the Legislature shall provide penalties for the violation of this provision, and for the proper enforcement of the same. (2) That the Legislature may provide that stores, workshops, banking-houses, and other places of business, of any class or calling, shall not keep open on the first day of the week, and shall provide penalties for the violation thereof." The majority of the people believe that it is right to give a certain regard for Sunday because they have been taught from infancy that it is a sacred day and that it is not right to perform common labor upon it. And with this education in the mind it is perfectly natural to think that we ought to have a law to compel men to be quiet and refrain from labor on Sunday. But consider one great fact that lies right at the very threshold of this proposed amendment, and that fact is stated in the "Declaration of Rights," which prefaces the Constitution of California, the same thing being stated in substance in the declaration of rights of the National Constitution, and also of the constitutions of the other states of the Union. The words expressing it are, "All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." The foregoing is one of the many forms of stating a great fundamental principle of government that has been recognized in this nation ever since our fathers of the Revolution cemented that principle with their own hallowed blood into the corner-stone of this the greatest and the grandest republic that has ever been builded among the sons and daughters of men. That declaration of an inalienable right recognizes that a man is born to enjoy not only liberty, but life itself. Life and liberty are an intertwined pair that can not be separated without destroying them both. You may take away a man's liberty, and still leave him breathing, but the fire and the sentiments of manhood are all gone, and he is nothing more than so much driftwood floating aimlessly along to the sea of oblivion. Now just as soon as it is admitted that it is a governmental right that one seventh of our time may be prescribed and bound about by civil law, a great bulwark has been swept away, and we are still further compelled to admit that if one seventh may be taken, then two sevenths may also be taken and so on until a man is made an abject slave to the state. His time is not his own, and he must worship the state as his deity. All that slavery ever did anywhere was to compel men to surrender their whole time to some master. This proposed amendment asks us to become at least one-seventh part of a slave to the state by surrendering to it one-seventh part of our time. There is no avoiding the conclusion that we can not separate our life from our time. Whatever takes any part of our time takes just that much of our lives. Liberty must be clear-cut and absolute or it is no liberty at all. No man can admit that any portion of his time can be appropriated contrary to his wishes without allowing himself to become a slave. For if we are put in bondage on one day of the week we are to a certain extent in bondage all the time. It is well to think of these things, for the fathers thought these principles of enough importance to embody them in our great national declaration of rights, from which they have been drawn with most becoming propriety by so many of the states of the Union. There is another provision in this proposed amendment that should have due attention. It reads: "Provided, however, that any law or ordinance passed or adopted under the second or third subdivision of this section shall not apply to persons who conscientiously believe that the seventh day of the week should be observed as the Sabbath, and who actually refrain from opening their places of business on that day." Why single out for exemption only those "who conscientiously believe that the seventh day of the week should be observed as the Sabbath, and who actually refrain from opening their places of business on that day"? The great majority may have a certain regard for Sunday, and a large part of this majority may have a conscience concerning its observance. A small minority observe the seventh day. But what about the intermediate class that do not regard any day? Are they to be considered as having no rights? Must they surrender one-seventh part of their time when they desire to use it for themselves? There are several thousand Seventh-day Adventists, a small number of Seventh-day Baptists, with the bare possibility that there9may be some Jews, in California who conscientiously keep the seventh day. But these are far outnumbered by those who are absolutely indifferent to any day, and who want their time that they may spend it in the way that brings them the most pleasure. Are we to say that these shall have one seventh of their time taken and no regard paid them? The man who conscientiously keeps the seventh day as a period of rest and worship does so voluntarily because it is his desire and his joy to do so. The man who keeps Sunday in the same spirit also takes his rest voluntarily and receives his reward in the consolation that it brings to his conscience. But the great class who have no respect for any day are asked to help hedge themselves about, not by a mere statute of the Legislature, but by constitutional enactment, so that their pleasures and privileges for one whole seventh of their time shall be handed out to them on the prescription of the civil state. Such a procedure is unbecoming, unjust, and unchristian. But in saying all this in regard to an amendment to the state constitution the right to keep Sunday or any other day is fully recognized. If men desire to observe a day of rest and worship, it is their privilege and their exalted right. But if there is just one lone man in the state who chooses to regard no day at all, it is his equal right, and he should be fully protected in it. For just governments are not instituted for the purpose of allowing an overwhelming majority to ride ruthlessly over a weak minority, but to protect that minority in its rights, just because of its weakness. The fathers of the republic recognized these principles as so fundamental that they voluntarily laid their lives upon the altar to establish and sustain them. Shall we, their children, throw away such an invaluable heritage? T.