A Sunday Ordinance and the Mayor's Veto
By W. F. Martin
The Council Passed a Sunday Law—The Mayor Vetoes It—He Thought the Ordinance to Be Religious Legislation
ON the third day of February of the present year, the city council of Wenatchee, Washington, passed by a vote of five to two a Sunday closing ordinance entitled, "An ordinance to prohibit the carrying on of certain business and amusements on Sunday and providing a penalty for the violation thereof." ELECTED WITH THIS IN VIEW
It seems that some of the council were elected by the church people with this in view. After the council had passed the ordinance, the fact developed that the mayor did not favor such a measure and intended to veto it. A few days later he did this and gave his reasons for so doing. Some of these reasons are so general and apply so well to all Sunday legislation, they will be of interest to the readers of the Signs. There is a concerted movement all over the land in favor of Sunday closing, and the friends of liberty will welcome the broad ideas expressed by Mayor Parr. The entire text of the veto would be of interest, but only those portions are given which have a bearing on the principles of liberty in general. NOT FOR PEACE OR GOOD GOVERNMENT
"It can not be argued that the ordinance is for the maintenance of peace or good government, for it can not be said that those who attend have not conducted themselves in a perfectly orderly and decorous manner. It can not be said that it is necessary in the interests of good government and the welfare of the corporation and its trade, commerce, and manufactures, because the rights of none of these are infringed. This is admitted by the fact that the theaters are permitted, without restriction or regulation, to operate upon all days except Sunday. It can not be sustained on the ground that it is necessary as a police, sanitary, or other regulation, as a regulation, or as a regulation of any kind or description, for it is, as a matter of fact, a prohibition, pure and simple, no pretext being made to regulate the business of the theater in any manner whatsoever." "It may be said that the ordinance is made in the interests of those who operate theaters, and that they, in common with other people, should be given a day of rest, and that the ordinance is enacted with that end in view. But the ordinance itself shows the fallacy of such a position, for it recognizes the advisability of a certain few working for the comfort and convenience of the many when it exempts certain kinds of business from its operation." TO STRIP OFF THE DISGUISE
"These latter suggestions are offered in order that the question may be stripped of any disguise indicating a necessity for the ordinance as a police regulation, and that it may stand before us in its true light, viz., that of a purely religious question. It, in my judgment, is simply intended to enforce by legislation the mandates of the various religious creeds." THE RIGHTS OF THE UNBELIEVER
"In discussing the question from this point of view, I wish to say that I recognize the right of the devotees of the various creeds to believe whatever they choose, to practise whatever they choose, and to teach whatever they choose, so long as the same is done within legal limits. But in recognizing such right, I do not mean to concede that the rights of that body of individuals who have not been able to adopt the beliefs or the practises of such creeds, and who conduct themselves in an orderly and decorous manner, and desire to attend a theater on Sunday evening for their instruction, convenience, or amusement, should be held less sacred." "It is said that no less than one thousand people each week attend the theaters in this city, and enjoy there whatever of instruction and amusement is offered. Upon what theory of moral right can any other body of our citizenship say to those persons that they shall not thus employ their time? It can not be said that it is wrong to attend theaters; for in extending the prohibition only to Sundays, the ordinance itself recognizes the theater as a proper institution. If, then, the theater is a proper institution, is a proper place for people to congregate, why is it wrong on any day to congregate there?" TOO SELFISH FOR JUSTIFICATION
"It is no doubt true that if theaters were not conducted on Sundays, a portion of the attendance would probably attend the various churches. It is probably true that the collection account in the churches would be increased. Recognizing this as desirable, it is nevertheless a view-point too selfish to justify the legislative assistance." "It may also be said, and it is no doubt confidently believed by the devotees of the various religious creeds, that if certain numbers of these persons attend the church, they will receive a benefit which they will not secure by attendance upon the theaters. Upon this question, however, minds differ, and it is not the province of the legislative authority to decide the question." IN HARMONY WITH AMERICAN PRINCIPLES
It seems to the writer that these expressions are certainly in harmony with true American principles. This Sunday law, as well as all others, is simply religious legislation. Such legislation not only does not secure better church attendance, but contrariwise, breeds hatred to religion in the minds of those who are thus deprived of their rights. Have ministers and people forgotten the past history of persecution which arose from a desire on the part of professed Christians to force upon others their ideas of proper worship? We feel to sound a note of warning, and to urge diligence upon all to preserve the noble principles of civil and religious liberty expressed in Mayor Parr's veto.