The California Sunday-Rest Bill.
PERHAPS it ought to be called the Tufts bill, as the Rev. G. L. Tufts is, it is said, proud to be known as its author. It was introduced into the assembly by Mr. Grove L. Johnson, who favors it. It was introduced into the Senate by request. The Bill reads word for word, line for line, as follows: No. 37
INTRODUCED BY MR. JOHNSON OF SACRAMENTO,
JANUARY 8, 1909.
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC MORALS. To AMEND THE PENAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER TO TITLE IX OF PART I THEREOF; TO PRESERVE ONE DAY IN THE WEEK AS A DAY OF REST, AND TO PROMOTE HEALTH, MORALS AND THE PUBLIC WELFARE. The people of the State of California, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows: SECTION 1. A new chapter is hereby added to Title IX of Part I of the Penal Code to read as follows:
CHAPTER VI A. OF OFFENSES AGAINST HEALTH, MORALS AND THE PUBLIC WELFARE. Every person, firm, association or corporation who shall keep open on Sunday any shop, store, building or place of business where goods, wares or merchandise are sold or kept for sale, or who shall engage in any business, trade, or sale of goods, wares, or merchandise, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or shall be imprisoned in the county jail not to exceed thirty days; provided, however, that this section does not apply to hotels or restaurants in furnishing lodging or meals, to livery stables or garages, to bath or boat houses, to the sale of medicine or sick room supplies between the hours of 9:00 and 11:00 o'clock in the forenoon and 5:30 and 7:30 o'clock in the afternoon, except in cases of emergency, to the quiet sale and delivery of daily newspapers, or to any other place of business necessary to work as herein-after provided for. 300. Any person, firm, association or corporation who employs any employee, apprentice, servant or other person to labor or to engage in any trade, calling, avocation or business, except works of necessity, mercy, or charity or requires them to engage in such work or labor on Sunday, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than ten dollars nor more than two hundred dollars or be imprisoned in the county jail not to exceed thirty days and upon each subsequent conviction by both such fine and imprisonment; except, however, in case of corporations the penalty of imprisonment when imposed shall be imposed upon all officers or agents in the state committing such offense or causing the same to be committed; provided that this section does not apply:— (a) To persons, firms, associations or corporations owning or operating telegraph, telephone or electric light plants; boats, vessels, vehicles, cars, or regular trains for the transportation of passengers, live stock or perishable freight, and the continuance to their destination of trains and vessels in transit when Sunday begins, or the collection and delivery of baggage for the same; but nothing herein shall legalize special Sunday excursions. (b) To such manufacturing establishments or industrial processes as must be kept in continuous operation to prevent serious loss. (c) To unavoidable work essential to the protection of mines or property in imminent danger of destruction or serious injury. (d) To the sale and delivery of milk. (e) To any person who regularly observes some day during the week other than Sunday as a day of rest. But provided further that, except in cases of emergency, said employee, apprentice, servant or other persons shall not be employed on Sunday unless allowed twenty-four consecutive hours without labor during said week. 301. Every person, firm, association or corporation who shall keep open on Sunday any bar, saloon or dramshop, or any place of any kind or description, where spirituous, malt, or fermented liquors or wines, or any admixture thereof, are sold, given away or served, or kept for sale; or who shall sell, give away or serve any spirituous, malt, or fermented liquors, or wines or any admixture thereof, on Sunday, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than thirty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars, and be imprisoned in the county jail not less than five nor more than ninety days, and upon a second conviction, in addition to said fine and imprisonment, any license which may have been granted for opening and maintaining such place of business shall be void and shall not be renewed within two years next thereafter for said place or to said person, firm, association, or corporation. 301a. Every person, firm, association or corporation who shall keep open on Sunday any place of public amusement to which an admission fee is directly or indirectly charged; or who shall conduct or take part in any said public amusement shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, or be imprisoned in the county jail not to exceed thirty days, and upon a second conviction by both such fine and imprisonment. 301b. It shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorney, sheriff, constable, city or town marshal, or any and all public or peace officers in this state to inform against and diligently prosecute any and all persons guilty of the violations of the provisions of this act either upon credible information or upon reasonable cause to believe that there has been any such violation. Any said officer who shall refuse or wilfully neglect to inform against and prosecute offenders against this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars and the court before which said officer shall be tried shall declare the office or appointment held by the said officer vacant, and said officer shall not be re-elected or appointed to fill said vacancy. 301c. All fines collected from the violation of sections 299, 300, 301, 301a, 301b, of this Code shall be paid into the common school fund of the county. It is not our purpose to enter into an extended discussion of what can be done under the proposed law by one class or another. That is a secondary matter. It is the principle underlying such legislation. This bill is but the small end of the wedge. Yet it may be of interest to present just what the author of the Bill, Mr. G. L. Tufts, has to say. He writes to the SIGNS OF THE TIMES under date of Dec. 3, 1908, as follows: "What An Adventist Might Do On Sundays Under the Proposed Law." "The rights of every Seventh-day Adventist are just as dear to him as those of any other class of men, and they should be just as sacred in the eyes of the law, which is not supposed to discriminate against any citizen however humble. A law that affects one-seventh of our time is a matter of considerable interest to all. What would those who observe Saturday as their day of rest and worship be permitted to do on Sundays without violating the proposed Sunday rest law? "They could work in a hotel, restaurant, livery stable, or garage. They could be employed in the fire or police department, in operating trains, electric lines, boats, stages, or delivering baggage to the same. They could work in a telegraph or telephone office, in an electric light plant, a sugar plant, an oil refinery, or pumping the mines. They could engage in selling medicines, milk, daily papers, or run an ice-cream parlor. They could attend to their office work, or do any kind of work on their ranches or about the home the same as other days of the week. In short, any kind of private employment would not be under the ban of the law, or any work of necessity. "The bill does not propose any union of church and state, and in no sense is it 'religious legislation.' If it were, it would be unconstitutional and the courts would so declare it. In religious matters, all stand on a par before the laws of the land. "Neither is it against 'personal liberty,' unless it can be shown to be unnecessary for the public welfare. Our Federal Court declares it to be the chief province of law 'to promote the public health and the public morals.' These are the two prime objects of the proposed legislation, and the history of nations proves that a civil statute for a weekly rest day is essential to secure these ends. Whatever, then, is for the public welfare is no infringement upon personal liberty. The law is to prohibit crimes against men. "G. L. TUFTS,
"Author of the Sunday Rest Bill." Mr. Tufts truly says that "a law which affects one seventh of our time is a matter of considerable interest to all." He also says that "the bill does not PROPOSE any union of church and state, and in no sense is it 'RELIGIOUS LEGISLATION.'" Let us see. 1. THE BILL PROPOSES RELIGIOUS LEGISLATION. It proposes not only to make a legal weekly rest day, but to make a RELIGIOUS day the legal weekly rest day. Mr. Tufts' letter-head is that of the "International Reform Bureau." That letter-head declares: "We fight four great sins—intemperance, impurity, Sabbath-breaking, and gambling." The very term "Sabbath" is religious, and it is religion which deals with SIN. Civil law can deal only with CRIME. Further, that letter-head of the Bureau to which Mr. Tufts belongs declares concerning the four sins named above: "We fight these evils by four means—legislation, letters, lectures, and literature." In other words, Mr. Tufts fights SABBATH-BREAKING with LEGISLATION. Again: Mr. Tufts is reported in the Sacramento "Bee" of January 11, as saying the previous Sunday in the United Brethren Church of that city: "Instead of a holiday Sunday we should have a hallowed Sunday, when men would remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. It should be the kind of a Sunday that the Puritan fathers brought with them on the 'Mayflower.'" It is needless to say that the Puritan Sunday was both RELIGIOUS and CIVIL as far as intolerant civil enactment and more intolerant civil enforcement could make it. Therefore according to Mr. Tufts he is working for religious legislation. Unfortunately, Mr. Tufts' proposed legislation, letters, lectures, and literature do not agree. Furthermore, (Continued on next page.)