American Sentinel, Vol. 8, No. 7
If Congress can do this in one case, can interpret the Bible in one point, it caPage 1
If Congress can do this in one case, can interpret the Bible in one point, it can do it in any case; it can interpret the Bible on every point. When Congress went beyond the Constitution in this, as it did, it put itself and the Government in line with all the Church and State governments that have ever been, and assumed to itself to be the interpreter of the Bible for all the people in the land, and for all who come into the land. More than that, it not only assumed to itself the right and the authority to interpret and enforce divine law as such, but in doing that it put the stamp of its legislative approval upon a given religious and doctrinal belief. It made an adherence to that belief and observance distinctively necessary to citizenship under this Government. It built a surer foundation for that line of judicial precedent in religious law for which there has never heretofore been any adequate basis. The possibilities, rather even the probabilities, of the continuance of the Sunday-closing contest as regards the World's Fair,—and of appeal to the highest court of Sunday-law cases on their merits,—are fraught with much that is uncomfortable to the occupants of the Supreme Bench. Congress took the fatal step in haste last session. In shame at the position in which it finds itself and in fear of the Church party it refuses now to retrace its steps, or even consider the propriety of so doing. When the Supreme Court is put in a similar position what will be its attitude? Will it refuse to review or antagonize the Brewer decision and allow this revolution to take its course? The Tennessee Prosecutions for Sunday Labor.
By C. P. B.
THE past week has been an eventful one in the history of the “Adventist cases,” as they are familiarly called in Paris, even the Attorney-General using that term when addressing the Court. Prior to last summer, about five thousand dollars had been spent in this State in defending persons accused of nuisance by violation of the Sunday laws; but apparently nothing was accomplished; and in the cases of last summer, practically no defense was made. The defendants simply made a statement to the Court that they were conscientious in working on Sunday, believing that they had a constitutional and God-given right to do so. They were, however, convicted, and upon refusal to pay the fine and costs, amounting in each case to about twenty-five dollars, were imprisoned in the county jail and required to work upon the streets in the chain-gang with several negroes convicted for larceny and other offenses against the State. The facts just stated, coming to the knowledge of Prof. Jas. T. Ringgold, a member of the Baltimore Bar and Professor of Law in the Baltimore University, that gentleman proposed to the National Religious Liberty Association, through whose publications he had learned the facts, that if he were permitted to do so, he would appear and defend the persecuted men in the present cases. His kind offer was accepted both by the association and by the several defendants, and in order to afford Professor Ringgold every facility possible, Mr. W. L. Carter, of the bar of this place, was employed to assist him in the defense. At this stage of the proceedings, Ex-Senator Tolley, of this State, appeared upon the scene, having been attracted by the notoriety of the “Adventist cases,” and by his interest in the principle involved. The ex-senator, who, by the way, is a Primitive Baptist, proposed that50his friend, Ex-Governor Porter, formerly judge of this judicial circuit and subsequently chief magistrate of the State, should also be brought into the case. Some doubt was expressed as to the possibility of securing the services of Judge Porter, but when asked if he would appear as counsel in behalf of the persecuted men, he not only consented, but, like Professor Ringgold, proposed to give his services freely because of his interest in the cases, his respect for the parties interested, and for the sake of the principle involved. In an interview given to a reporter of the Memphis Commercial, and published in that paper on the 3rd inst., Governor Porter said:— My consent to take part in defending these cases is not based upon any sympathy with the peculiar tenets of the denomination to which these defendants belong, but is simply due to my desire to vindicate the rights and liberties of all citizens in our State. I believe that the action of our courts with reference to this question of compulsory Sunday idleness has hitherto been in contravention of the principles of American liberty, as well as contrary to the expressed provision of the constitution of our State, according to my construction of it in regard to religious-equality, and I am gratified to have the opportunity of doing what I can to reverse that action in the interest of humanity and of true liberty, as I understand it. I have always understood that these people are peaceable and law-abiding citizens, and I have yet to learn that the acts for which they are indicted have injured or discommoded their fellow-citizens in any way, or interfered in the slightest with any substantial rights of others. Regarding them as I do, as the representatives of a great principle, apart altogether from the religious aspects of their belief or their conduct, I have no hesitation in saying that I sincerely hope that they will successfully emerge from their present legal difficulty.
Upon examination, the attorneys found that several of the indictments were defective. These, six in number, were quashed by the court upon motion. This left but two cases for trial at this term; and, at this writing, only one of these has been disposed of, namely that of W. D. Dortch, described in the indictment as “Billy Dortch.” This case was taken up on the third instant and resulted in a verdict of acquittal, without the jury leaving their seats. It was proved in Mr. Dortch’s case that he had worked on two separate and distinct Sundays. On one occasion he was seen, by two witnesses, working in his garden, and on another, he was seen, by one witness, “piling chunks” in a clearing on the back part of his farm. The Attorney-General made a desperate effort to prove that it was the custom of the defendant to work on Sunday, even going so far as to subpoena and attempt to put upon the stand, Mr. Dortch’s own son, a boy of only ten years of age. But this, Judge Swiggart would not permit. In his plea to the jury, the Attorney-General made an effort to appeal to their religious prejudices, but upon objection, the Judge instructed him to confine his remarks to the record. This left him with but little to say and not in first-class humor for saying it; nevertheless he continued for several minutes pleading for a verdict of conviction, which he insisted the jury must bring in or else violate their oath. The charge of the Judge was very fair, and so was destructive to all the hopes of the prosecution; and at its conclusion the Attorney-General abandoned the case, saying that the State would consent to an acquittal, and so, with the consent of the jury, the Judge at once entered a verdict of not guilty, and the case was at an end. The attorneys are very anxious to take one case to the Supreme Court, feeling confident that a favorable termination can be reached there; and so have proposed to submit the remaining case upon a statement of facts, covering all the salient points at issue. It is probable, however, that the Attorney-General, who is more of a politician than a lawyer, will not agree to such a presentation as will get the facts fairly before the court of last resort, and that no appeal can be made to the Supreme Court at this time, as he has it in his power to refuse to try the remaining case at this term of court. Public sentiment has changed a good deal in this county since the trials last summer. The attitude assumed toward “Adventist cases” by such men as Professor Ringgold, Ex-Senator Tolley, and Ex-Governor Porter has set people to thinking, and while bigotry and intolerance still live here they are becoming ashamed and are found hiding under various subterfuges. Judge Swiggart has evidently grown tired of having his court turned into a religious inquisition, and while his view of the law and his understanding of the decision of the Supreme Court compel him to lend himself to some extent to persecution for conscience’ sake, there is small room to doubt that he has no sympathy for the persecution and that he would be heartily glad to see the court of last resort reverse its own decision in the Parker case, thus leaving him free to order a discontinuance of the proceedings against the Adventists in his district. More details and farther interesting facts will be given in future letters. Now that Congress has gone beyond the Constitution on one point, for religion’s sake, and has legislated to close the World’s Fair on Sunday, it may, for the same reason, go beyond it on any or every point. THE Congress of the United States had no right to put the Bible into its legislation and make it the basis of any legislative measure. The Constitution is the proper basis of congressional legislation, not the Bible. But the Constitution has been ignored and legislation had upon an assumed Biblical basis. To reach this the Constitution has been violated, the word of God has been blasphemed, and a statutory misinterpretation of a divine commandment has been had. THE commandment says the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord; but in the face of this plain declaration the Senate of the United States has put its own interpretation upon that commandment, and has declared that the statement “the seventh day is the Sabbath” means “the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.” Thus the Congress of the United States has taken the fourth commandment from the Bible and put it into its legislation, and has put its own interpretation upon the divine statute. This is not strictly an adequate basis, but it will no doubt be accepted as such, in connection with the Supreme Court decision that this is a “Christian Nation.” It may be that the Supreme Court will be called upon during the coming year to state its position upon this definitely, and not in general terms. This may be brought about through the question of State rights, as to whether Congress has any jurisdiction within the municipality of Chicago by which it may enforce the Sunday-closing proviso, or lay any penalty for its non-observance. It may come through an appeal from the lower courts of some case brought under a religious statute or judicial precedent. However it may come it is not probable that the Supreme Court can long avoid the responsibility of defining directly the position which it has taken in the case of the Church of the Holy Trinity of New York. When that point is reached the Supreme Court will face an awkward alternative. It will be necessary either to antagonize openly the First Amendment to the Constitution, and indirectly the Tenth Amendment by assuming for Congress powers which have not been granted to it; or the opinion of Justice Brewer that this is a “Christian Nation,” and in which the entire bench concurred, will have to be overruled. To Try the Case upon Its Merits.
A CORRESPONDENT for the Memphis Commercial, at the Seventh-day Adventist trials at Paris, Tenn., publishes an interview had previous to the calling of the cases, with Professor James T. Ringgold, who was there for the purpose of taking part in the defense. Mr. Ringgold is a member of the Baltimore Bar and lecturer in the Baltimore Law School. This is what Mr. Ringgold said:— “I suppose you want me to tell you how I came to be here, and what I expect to do. I have taken considerable interest for a number of years in the Sunday law question, and through a work on that subject which I recently wrote, I became acquainted with the National Religious Liberty Association, which I found to be composed largely of ‘Seventh-Day Adventists.’ As the association and myself had a warm joint interest in the cause of religious liberty, we have ever since been in correspondence. When I learned of the proceedings against the Seventh-day Adventists in this county, which are similar to those to which our Hebrew fellow-citizens are occasionally subjected in Maryland, I at once wrote to the secretary of the National Religious Liberty Association, stating that if I could be of any service whatever in defending these men, it would give me pleasure to volunteer my time and labor in the good cause. My proposition was accepted, and that is how I happen to be on the ground. You will understand, therefore, that my concern in the matter is by no means that of mere counsel, but that of a citizen who believes that there is an issue at stake in all such cases as these, irrespective altogether of their results, so far as the individuals are concerned. With this idea I have persuaded my friends to allow me to exhaust every legal resource in their favor, and have associated myself with W. L. Carter of your bar. I may add that the statement which has appeared in a number of papers to the effect that Hon. Robert G. Ingersoll and Hon. Don M. Dickinson have been retained for the defense in these cases is a mistake.” “Of course this is not the time to detail any of the points which Mr. Carter and I propose to argue, either before the court or the jury, but I have no objection to telling you that we rest our confidence of winning our cases largely upon an expression which was used by Judge Swiggart in a previous case of similar character. The learned judge is reported to have declared that he intended to have the laws ‘strictly enforced.’ This is just what we desire, and all that we desire. We shall make no captious objections at any stage, nor will we contend for delay for its own sake. We shall proceed on the assumption that in order that a criminal law shall be ‘strictly enforced’ it is necessary at every point that the strictness shall be exercised in favor of the accused and not against him. If we can show to the satisfaction of the learned judge that there is a reasonable doubt as to any one single proposition of law growing out of these cases we shall urge upon him that the strict enforcement of the law requires him to give us the benefit of that doubt just as much as its strict enforcement will require that the jury, if we ever get to the jury, shall give us the benefit of every reasonable doubt as to the facts. I may say that we are satisfied that we shall not get to the jury, if the learned judge will favor us with that strict construction of the law for which we shall contend. The reputation of Judge Swiggart is a sufficient guaranty that his rulings will be conscientious, and our endeavor will be to see that they cover every possible point, not only in order that we have the benefit of all the law that there is for us, but also in order that we may know precisely where we stand for the future. Our strength is that many of what we believe to be our strongest points do not appear to have been seriously argued or explicitly decided in previous cases, either by the learned judge of this circuit or the courts of last resort in Tennessee. In fact, it would be hard to find a case anywhere in which the merits of the Sunday law question have been thoroughly and exhaustively elucidated.” “I understand from what you tell me, Mr. Ringgold, that you are not, yourself, a member of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination?” “No, I am not. I am a communicant in the Episcopal Church, but while my denomination has special religious services on Sunday, just as it has on Christmas day, Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Ascension day, the forty days of Lent, and on many saints’ days, I am not aware of anything in its doctrine or discipline which either requires or justifies the use of the police power of the State to compel any one, either within or outside of its pale, to observe a different line of conduct on Sunday, or on any other of the days which it especially honors, from the line of conduct which he observes on any other day. This being the case, I understand that I am as free to advocate the absolute51equality of all religions and of no religion before the civil law as is a Seventh-day Adventist. This is the cause in which I am so deeply interested, and this interest is the cause of my being in Paris at present. I want to say, also, that to my interest in the principle at stake there has of late been added a daily increasing personal interest in my clients. I have been, for some time past, studying the peculiar doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventists, as well as making acquaintances among them, and I do not hesitate to say that I regard them as the most remarkable and interesting set of people in the United States to-day. I have been fairly astounded by the combination which I find in them of intense zeal and absolute toleration. They have given the lie to the philosophy of all the ages, which has always been agreed upon the proposition that toleration can only co-exist with indifference. And they have done more than this. They have elevated toleration from a mild virtue of self-control to the position of a leading and fundamental Christian duty. Incredible as it may sound, they believe in and act upon the theory that there can be no true religion without the absolute divorcement of religious and civil influences. This is a doctrine which has never before been enunciated since it was first given to the world by the Founder of Christianity—that is to say, never officially enunciated by any organization of Christians, so far, at least, as I am aware. “There is another thing about these people which connects them remarkably with the Christians of the first era and distinguishes them as sharply as anything well could do from the average Christians of these days. This is their willingness to suffer for opinion’s sake. Perhaps this contributes even more than their orderly, clean, and upright manner of life to make them valuable citizens just now. They are history makers, just as were the first Christian martyrs. It was by bringing out the rancor and cruelty of the Roman Government that the Christians destroyed pagan intolerance. It can only be through such men as these Seventh-day Adventists that the inhumanity, bigotry and unchristianity, which inspires all Sunday laws can be forced upon the attention of the people of the United States. I believe that these men will ultimately prove the instruments by which this survival of the union of Church and State will be rooted out of every American commonwealth, and I will further say that if this should prove to be the case, they will have done more for the service of humanity and for the glory and welfare of our country, than the greatest philanthropist, statesman or soldier that ever lived. I am far from attaining to their standard of life, and I do not profess to decide controverted points of doctrine between them and other denominations, but I am proud to be associated with them in the humblest capacity in the fulfillment of this which I believe to be their mission. Men are rarer than is generally supposed, and these are men, and I am glad to be among them.” A Word to the General Assembly of Tennessee.
By Editor
[This earnest and well-timed appeal to the General Assembly of Tennessee is reprinted from the Sabbath Recorder, where it is credited to the Cottage Pulpit, of Nashville, Tenn.] THE legislature of Tennessee will be in session here in our beautiful capitol building when this number of the Cottage Pulpit reaches some of our more distant readers. As a whole month will intervene before we shall have another chance to speak to these honored representatives of the people of our State, and they will then be far along in their ninety-day's biennial session, we want to ask a hearing of their clemency upon subjects in which, as a citizen, as a man, and as a servant of God, we feel a profound interest. There are two questions, of a religious or semi-religious aspect, both of them, that ought to have attention before this august assembly of a State's legislators. One is the lifting of Tennessee's sovereign arm as an incorporated part of the American Nation in a withering rebuke of the Russian persecution of the Jews; and this can be done through proper instruction of our senators and request of our representatives in Congress. This is all we shall say now upon this question. The companion of this in our estimation, only as much more pressing as it is nearer home—at our own door, in fact—is the Sabbath question, as it will, or ought to, come before them in the case of the wicked persecution of certain harmless and useful men, women and children, citizens of Tennessee, resident in the county of Henry. It will be for this legislature and those honorable, and we hope God-fearing men, whom the favor and confidence of their fellow-citizens have sent here to legislate for the commonwealth, to say, whether they endorse that Henry County inquisition or not. It will be for them to purge the State's escutcheon of the stain that these wicked persecutors of good citizens under a form of law have brought upon it, or, by failing to do so, deepen the spot of infamy until honest men traveling abroad will be ashamed to own that they belong to Tennessee. It is to be hoped that there will not be wanting a wise and patriotic statesman in each branch of our legislature who will make it his especial care to prepare and bring forward a proper bill, providing for the repeal of all laws or parts of laws upon our statute-book under color of which any man's religious belief can be made the occasion of his arrest, fine, or imprisonment, to gratify the religious prejudices and petty spite of that majority in a neighborhood or county to whom the said religious belief may chance to be objectionable. You owe it, gentlemen of the Tennessee General Assembly—let us say it in all earnestness and respect—you owe it to the Constitution of your country, and to the spirit of its framers, to the genius of this enlightened age, and to your solemn oaths as now entrusted with the power to make, amend, or annul the laws of your State (that, under the instrument of its own organic being, is required to be in accord with and under obedience to our great national Constitution, which as you all well know forbids the passage of any law that interferes with freedom of conscience in the practice of a man's religion), you owe it to the truth of God and the voice of the very consciences that he has put within you, to do the thing suggested, and to act promptly and without delay. The eyes of men of correct principles, of proper sense of justice under American law, are upon you, to see what you are going to do about the business; for it is a matter in which every real Christian, every true patriot, every man in fact whose heart has not, from long disuse of its better instincts, dwindled down to the dimensions of a peanut, is interested; for it is a matter patent to everybody that, under color of statutory law in Tennessee men have been, and are now being, deprived of their liberty because in the exercise of their religious convictions, they, after keeping the seventh day holy according to the law of God, work on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, without disturbing others, either individuals or congregations, in their Sunday-rest or their worship on that day. You well know, gentlemen of the Legislature, that such a use of the law protecting worshiping assemblies as that made of it in these cases was never contemplated by its framers, or if by any jesuitical design so intended to be used against the few but good Christian people of the country who were then known as keepers of the seventh day Sabbath, the statute was void from the beginning as plainly at variance with the spirit and letter of the amendment to the Constitution of the United States on the subject of religious liberty. Allow us to suggest that, inasmuch as malicious persecution is, if we mistake not, and ought to be, a felony in any and every properly regulated legal system, you would do yourselves honor if you would frame a statute fully covering the case of those wicked religious bigots of Henry County, who are said to boast that they will drive the keepers of the seventh-day Sabbath out of the country. If you could by some legal enactment stop the mouths of all such disturbers of the peace of their inoffensive neighbors who are in every respect better than their persecutors, but are greatly in the minority, you would be doing a good thing. Is not a man's religious liberty dear to him; yea, as dear as his life? If, then, a threat against a man's life is a punishable offense, should not the penal code take some cognizance of the other? If under ordinary circumstances a malicious persecutor is the meanest creature that a court of justice is ever called to deal with and punish, how the color of such a character darkens into midnight hues, when from the private individual it becomes, of course only in the name, a Methodist or Baptist, Presbyterian or Christian, or a combination of such, who, to show his zeal for his sect, puts his weak and unpopular brother of another sect “in durance vile,” simply because he hates him, and has the legal machinery of his country under his spiteful fingers, and can do it! Can't you stop this thing, gentlemen of the legislature? Surely it is the province of the true gentleman wherever he is placed to be the protector of the weak, and the righter of the wronged. It has been recommended that March 5 be set apart by all denominations as a day for considering in the Sunday-schools and pulpits, the question of Sunday closing. The Christian Patriot heads its review of the lesson for the day thus:— March 5, 1898.—Keeping the Sabbath. GOLDEN TEXT.—Exodus 20: 8. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. The lesson relates chiefly to the prohibition of Sabbath work by the civil authority, by law. Sunday, since the resurrection of Christ, is the Sabbath. The adult Bible class which can keep from considering Sunday laws while studying this lesson must have a queer teacher. Certainly, and still queerer pupils! Extract from Address of A. T. Jones Before the House Committee on World’s Fair for Repeal of Sunday Legislation.
By A. T. Jones
THREE distinct considerations in the Constitution of the United States forbid Congress to touch this question. The first is well defined by George Bancroft in a letter which he wrote to Dr. Philip Schaff, August 30, 1887, which reads as follows:— My Dear Dr. Schaff: I have yours of the 12th. By the Constitution no power is held by Congress except such as shall have been granted to it. Congress, therefore from the beginning, was as much without the power to make a law respecting the establishment of religion as it is now after the amendment has been passed. The power had not been granted, and therefore did not exist, for Congress has no powers except such as are granted; but a feeling has got abroad that there should have been a bill of Rights, and therefore to satisfy the craving, a series of articles were framed in the nature of a bill of Rights, not because such a declaration was needed, but because the people wished to see certain principles distinctly put forward as a part of the Constitution. The First Amendment, so far as it relates to an establishment of religion, was proposed without passion, accepted in the several States without passion, and so found its place as the opening words of the amendments in the quietest manner possible.
GEORGE BANCROFT. This is shown by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution which says that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” As no power has been granted to Congress on the subject of religion, that is reserved to the States or to the people. That is where we ask that this should be left,—just where the Constitution has left it. It is a question reserved to the States. It is for the State of Illinois alone, so far as any State can have anything to say upon the subject, to say whether the Fair shall be opened or shut on Sunday. If the State of Illinois should not say anything on the subject, it is still left with the people. It is for the people, in their own capacity as such, to act as they please in the matter, without any interference or dictation by Congress. Not only is that so on that point, but if the Constitution had not said a word on the subject of religion, there would have been no power in Congress to touch this question. But the people have spoken; the Constitution has spoken, and denied the right of the United States Government to touch the question, and has reserved that right to the States or to the people. Not only did it do that, but it went further, and actually prohibited the Government of the United States from touching the question. This lack of power would have been complete and total without the prohibition, because the powers not delegated are reserved. But they went further, and not only reserved this power, but expressly prohibited Congress from exercising it. It is trebly unconstitutional for Congress to touch the question. It was so at the beginning of the Government, and this is why we insist that this legislation shall be undone, and it be left where the Constitution has left it,—to the States or to the people. Mr. Houk,—a member of the Committee,—The language of the Constitution, I believe, is that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Mr. Jones,—I was going to follow this question a little further, and notice that amendment. The amendment does not read as it is often misquoted, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion;” but “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” There are two meanings in this clause. When the Constitution was made, all that it said upon this subject was that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Some of the States had established religions at the time; I think all except Virginia. Virginia had released herself in a campaign directly touching this question. The first part of the clause was intended to prohibit Congress from making any law respecting any of those religions which were established already in those States, and the second part of the clause prohibits Congress from touching the subject of religion on its own part, in any way. In the State of Virginia, from 1776—with the exception of the interval when the war was the highest,—to December 26, 1787, there was a campaign conducted over the same question that is now involved in this legislation. The English Church was the established church in Virginia, and the Presbyterians, and Quakers, and the Baptists sent a memorial to the General Assembly of Virginia, asking that as the Colonies had declared themselves free and independent of British rule in civil things, so the State of Virginia should declare itself free from British rule in religious things, and that they should not be taxed to support a religion which they did not believe, nor even any religion which they did believe. And the English Church was disestablished. Then a movement was made to establish the Christian religion, and legislate in favor of the Christian religion, by passing a bill establishing a provision for teachers of that religion. Madison and Jefferson took the opposition to that bill, and by vigorous efforts, defeated it, and in its place secured the passage of a bill establishing religious freedom in Virginia, which is the model of all the State Constitutions from that day to this, on the subject of religion and the State. Now then, that campaign in Virginia against the establishment of the Christian religion there, embodied the same principle that is involved in this legislation of to-day, and as that was distinctly shut out, so we ask that this shall be also, and Congress put the Government back to the place where it was before and where it belongs. Madison went right out of that campaign into the convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and carried with him into that convention the principles which he had advocated in that campaign, and put those principles into the United States Constitution; and the intention of all was, and is, that Congress shall have nothing at all to do with the subject of religion or religious observances. Washington in 1797, made a treaty with Tripoli, which explicitly declared that “the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion.” And when Congress has legislated upon this question with direct reference to the Christian religion, therein again it has gone contrary to the express intent of those who made the Constitution and established the supreme law, as expressed in their own words. And for this reason we ask that the thing shall be undone, and Congress put the Government right back where it was before that legislation was established, and leave the question where it belongs. The Constitution prohibits this legislation; and when the Constitution prohibits it, then ought not the legislation to be undone?