SUNDAY LAW by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Dec 15, 1881

SUNDAY LAW.

By Editor

THE constitutionality of the Sunday Law will soon be decided by the Supreme Court, as a case on appeal from San Jose is now pending before the full Court. In the first argument Mr. Laine, counsel for the defendant, said:—

"He should not contend that the law was unconstitutional under the old Constitution, nor that the Legislature had no constitutional power at that time to enact the law, but that the law was an unnecessary interference with the rights of citizens, and opposed to the present Constitution and Bill of Rights. The law as it reads would put a stop to every vocation on Sunday, and it applies as well to the doctor or the preacher who preaches for a stipend as to any other vocation. The law did not create a day of peace and rest as pretended. Livery horses could be driven to death by drunken hoodlums, the butcher could carry on his business, the telegraph operator could send messages, and the barber shops and bathhouses could keep open a part of the day. It did not pretend to stop either labor or business, for any occupation could be conducted under this statute, provided the doors were closed. The statute was in violation of the first section of the Bill of Rights. It was an interference for the mere sake of interference. He contended that the Constitution could be retroactive. It created a new order of things. It wiped out everything inconsistent with or opposed to its provisions. Its provisions were mandatory and prohibitory. He contended further that the law was a special law, because of the exceptions provided in the amendments. It was not a general law, if it did not apply to all alike. Mr. Laine discussed the constitutional phase of the question as to classes of citizens being granted privileges and immunities not granted to others, contending that livery men, barbers, doctors, and others exempted were classes of citizens, and any law exempting them from its operations or granting them special privileges, was clearly class legislation."

This is a "liquor case," and we shall have occasion for regrets whatever may be the decision. The law as it stands is unjust, and defective, as Mr. Laine clearly shows. It is not such a law as the welfare of the State demands. On the other side, a decision against the law will look much like granting "freedom to whisky," which all lovers of morality and order will regret. We have little hope, however, that a suitable law will be enacted. If the sentiment of the State is against the liquor traffic, why not enact a law which will fully meet the demand? A San Francisco correspondent of the Christian Statesman truthfully says:—

"The religious sentiment lies at the base of the movement, and without it the attempt must fail."

Let judges and ministers say what they please about "sanitary regulations," it is the "religious sentiment" which calls for the enforcement of the present law. It is urged that people need rest. So they do; but there is no just reason why one man should be compelled to rest to suit another man's convenience. We cannot discover the wisdom of such a "sanitary measure" as this. Nor do we discover the justice of an act which would compel a man who has conscientiously rested the seventh day, to rest the first day also,—not because he needs two days of rest, or can afford to rest two days—but because his neighbor wants him to rest! A. D. D. in Oakland preached that the law is right because men work too much, or to many hours; they will do more and better work in six days than in seven, and in eight hours a day than in ten. Then of course the law would be equally right if it compelled every man to restrict his labor to eight hours a day. There is a good deal of learned force spent to little purpose in favoring this law. Another reason prominently urged is that people who worship ought to be protected in their worship from disturbance. This is all a sham. It is not their worship which is disturbed; their feelings only are disturbed. We know by a happy experience that people may enjoy the worship of God while others are laboring all around them. If they would only keep their own hearts in a devotional frame, and let their religion moderate their prejudices, they would not be disturbed in their worship by the transaction of a little honest business in a remote street, out of their sight and hearing. Recent doings in Pennsylvania, where the Sunday law is very strict, are of interest to all those who are noting "the signs of the times." A man was prosecuted for selling liquor on Sunday, and was cleared. A Seventh-day Baptist was put in jail and kept there the full term of the legal sentence, for working on Sunday. Whatever may be the decision of the Supreme Court in the case now pending, this Sunday question has come to the front, and has come to stay. For more than a score of years we have continually urged, on the authority of the prophetic Scriptures, that the Sunday question would become one of the most prominent and exciting political issues of the day. This we taught long before the rise of the Association for the Religious Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. It promises already to become a source of the bitterest party strife; a war of communities and brotherhoods. The course of the "League of Freedom" is thus outlined by a San Francisco paper:—

"A general outline of the mode of warfare is that every member will keep open on a Sunday. He might be arrested every day. A jury trial will be demanded until every available juror have sat on a trial. The League will defray the legal expenses, and pay the fine if a conviction be had, and thus the supply of good men and true will soon be exhausted. The League will, at the next State election, decline to support any candidate who does not pledge himself to vote a repeal of the Sunday law."

The Oakland Daily Times of Dec. 7 speaks thus of the promised warfare in this city:— "There is talk among those in favor of enforcing the Sunday Law, of refusing to trade at stores which do not observe it. The storekeepers and others who do not wish to close on Sunday, are preparing to withdraw their trade from all who join in the movement against them. Such a war in our very midst will be most unfortunate for all concerned, and will cause an untold amount of hatred and ill-feeling, without doing any good. There have lately been similar contests in other States, and the only result was a disagreeable and ugly quarrel, the communities being divided into factions which were doing all they could to injure each other. Nothing but the power of public opinion will settle such a question, and create a popular demand for the enforcement of any regulation, and citizens will not be under any necessity of acting as spies, special policemen or prosecuting attorneys."

All this may be pleasing to the "religious sentiment" which is clamoring for the rigid enforcement of a rigid Sunday law. But that the interests of a pure and peaceable Christianity will be served thereby we have good reason to doubt. "But the end is not yet."