The American Sentinel, Vol. 7, No. 25
ON another page of this paper will be found a detailed account of the trial of WPage 1
ON another page of this paper will be found a detailed account of the trial of W. S. Lowry, one of the four Seventh-day Adventists, now in jail in Paris, Tenn., for doing quiet farm labor on Sunday. We trust that every reader of THE SENTINEL will peruse the whole report carefully. It is a sample of the other cases tried the same day. IN these cases the defendants all refused to plead unqualifiedly, because they felt that they could not honestly either assent to or deny the indictment as a whole. It was true that they had worked on Sunday. They felt that it was not true that the work was “to the great annoyance and disturbance of the people, to the evil example of morals, and a public nuisance to the citizens of the county, and against the peace and dignity of the State.” Hence the refusal to plead. It will be observed that in the case of W. S. Lowry only a single act of Sunday work was proved, except by the first witness, one of his own brethren in the church. And a single instance of Sunday work would not constitute a nuisance, even under Tennessee law. Without the testimony of T. F. Dortch, W. S. Lowry could not have been convicted; and yet, the indictment charges that his work was done “to the great annoyance and disturbance of the people.” If this were true why were not some of “the people” there to testify to the annoyance? There can be but one answer to the question, namely, that the “annoyance,” and “disturbance” was only the intolerance which springs eternal in the breast of the bigot at the knowledge that others believe and practice differently from himself. It was simply the annoyance of knowing that Mr. Lowry was a Seventh-day Adventist, and that it is the habit of Adventists to rest on the seventh day and to work on Sunday. THE character of the “annoyance” and “disturbance” occasioned by the Sunday work of the Seventh-day Adventists in Tennessee, is well illustrated by the following incident related to the writer by one of them. Shortly before the prosecutions in question, a Methodist living a little out of the Adventist neighborhood, said to a member of the Adventist Church: “You people are doing a great deal of harm in this country.” “Why, how is that?” said the Adventist. “We are quiet, inoffensive people.” “Yes,” responded the Methodist, “but were it not for your church we [the Methodists] would have regular meetings here at Springville, and all the young people who now go to your meetings would be working members of the Methodist Church.” “Well,” responded the Adventist, “show us our error and we will all be Methodists.” “That just what we’re going to do,” replied the Methodist; “we’re going to prosecute every one of you.” And yet some people say that these Sunday prosecutions are not religious persecution, but only the enforcing of the civil law! Well, that is all any religious persecution ever was. Except in isolated cases of mob violence, religious persecution has always been under the color and forms of civil law. ANOTHER noticeable feature of these Sunday cases is the latitude taken by the Attorney-General; for instance, the law confines the inquiry to one year before the finding of the indictment; but we find the Attorney-General asking T. F. Dortch these questions:— Q. How near do you live to him [the defendant], Mr. Dortch? A. About three hundred yards. Q. How long have you lived there, Mr. Dortch? Q. How long has he been living there? Q. Have you seen him at labor, his common every day labor within that time? This was no slip on the part of the Attorney for the State. He did the same thing in other cases, and persisted in it until told by the Judge to confine his questions to the twelve months immediately preceding the finding of the indictment. ANOTHER inconsistency in these trials was that while the Judge charged the jury that it was “not a question of religious belief or conviction at all either one way or the other,” the Attorney-General asked such questions as these:— “Are you a member of that church?” “Is it the habit of members of your church to labor on Sunday?” “There is a number of you gentlemen that belong to that church living in the same neighborhood?” “Have you seen him go to church on Sunday?” What place have such questions in cases that have nothing to do with “religious belief or conviction at all either one way or the other”? The fact is that the whole thing is a question of religious belief and conviction, and it is impossible to make it otherwise. It has all along been stated that “while the law compels the observance of Sunday it leaves a man perfectly free to keep any other day he may see fit.” This assertion was made by the Attorney-General in the case of W. S. Lowry, but in the case of James Stem, another of the men convicted for Sunday labor, the claim was disproved, and it was shown that a law requiring Sunday rest just as certainly requires Saturday labor for the average man dependent upon manual labor for a livelihood. The defendant, Mr. Stem, asked one of the witnesses for the State,194a Mr. Cox, who was not an Adventist: “Do you consider it necessary for a man to work six days?” Answer:— “Yes, sir.” The witness was then asked by the Attorney-General: “You do not think it necessary for people to work on Sunday, do you?” Answer:— “No, sir.” But Mr. Cox had already testified that it was necessary to work six days; therefore, according to this witness for the State of Tennessee, the man who believes that he ought to keep the seventh day, is, by the Sunday law of Tennessee, under the necessity of violating either his conscience or the law of the State. He is not left perfectly free to keep any day, but must keep Sunday or else fail of securing what are termed the necessaries of life. C. P. B. We have given in the last two numbers of The Sentinel some account of the trials of the Seventh-day Adventists indicted by the January Grand Jury of Henry County, Tenn., for working on Sunday. The following is a full report of one of the cases, and is a fair sample of all the others. Editorial comments upon it will be found on the first and last pages of this paper. The trial was held in Paris, Henry County, Tenn., May 27, before Circuit Judge W. H. Swiggart. The counsel for the State was Attorney-General J. W. Lewis. The defendant, W. S. Lowry (as also the other defendants), feeling that he was on trial for his religious faith, declined counsel, committing his case to the Lord, in accordance with Luke 12: 11, 12, and parallel scriptures. The Court (to defendant): Have you an attorney?
W. S. Lowry. No, sir.
Q. Are you not able to hire one?
A. I could have one if I chose.
Q. Do you propose to try the case without a lawyer?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. If you are not able to furnish a lawyer, the Court will furnish one.
A. I do not want any.
Q. You are entitled to a lawyer if you will take him, and the Court will appoint one if you will take him.
A. I do not want any. The jury were sworn in groups of four, each juror placing the tips of his fingers upon a copy of the Bible, while the clerk who held the book repeated the oath. The indictment was then read, as follows:—
State of Tennessee, } Jan. Term, A. D. 1892.
Henry County, } Jan. Term, A. D. 1892.
The Grand Jurors of the State of Tennessee elected, impaneled, sworn, and charged to inquire in and for the body of the county of Henry, in the State aforesaid, upon their oath present that W. S. Lowry, late of said county, laborer, heretofore, to wit, on the eighth day of November, A. D. 1891, that day being Sunday, and divers other Sundays before that date, and up to the taking of this inquisition, in the county of Henry aforesaid, then and there, unlawfully, openly, publicly, notoriously, and unnecessarily did engage in his secular business, and did perform and follow his common avocations on Sundays, by working on the farm, plowing, hoeing, chopping, hauling wood, mauling rails, and various and divers other kinds of work on Sundays; said work not being necessary, or a matter of charity, and it was and is to the great annoyance and disturbance of the people, to the evil example of morals, and a public nuisance to the citizens of the county, and against the peace and dignity of the State.
J. W. Lewis, Att. Gen.
Second Count. And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do further present that the said W. S. Lowry, on the days and dates aforesaid, and in the manner and form as aforesaid, was guilty of a public nuisance by said working on Sunday, to the prejudice of society, and against the peace and dignity of the State.
J. W. Lewis, Att. Gen. The Court (to defendant). Do you plead guilty, or not guilty?
W. S. Lowry. I can not plead either way to all the indictment.
The Court. As a matter of law it is necessary for you to plead guilty or not guilty on the whole as read. Which do you plead? (Silence.) I suppose you had better enter a plea of not guilty. Do you so plead? (Silence.)
W. L. Carter (a bystanding lawyer). By his si- lence it is necessary to enter a plea of not guilty for him. The Court (to clerk). Enter a plea of not guilty. The witnesses for the State were called, and as with the jury, each witness placed his hand upon a copy of the Bible while being sworn. Mr. T. F. Dortch (an Adventist) was then called by the State, and testified as follows:— Attorney-General. Mr. Dortch, do you know the defendant, Mr. W. S. Lowry?
Mr. T. F. Dortch. Yes, sir.
Q. How near do you live to him, Mr. Dortch?
A. About three hundred yards.
Q. How long have you lived there, Mr. Dortch?
A. About four years.
Q. How long has he been living there?
A. About six years.
Q. Have you seen him on Sunday at labor, his common, every day labor, within that time?
A. No, sir; within the last year you mean?
Q. Yes, sir; within last year, up to the first of January?
A. Yes, sir, I have in the last year.
Q. How many Sabbaths have you seen him at labor?
A. Sundays, you mean?
Q. Yes, Sundays.
A. That is quite different. I have seen him I don’t know how many times. Q. What sort of labor did you see him do?
A. I don’t just remember now. I saw him at different kinds of work.
Q. Mention some, please.
A. Well, I don’t know that that is necessary.
Q. Well, I think it is.
The Court. The witness can state what he has seen him do.
A. Well, I have seen him at work, but I do not know that I can describe it right now.
Attorney-General. Most any kind of work? See him plow any?
A. I do not think I have.
Q. Did you see him driving a team, hauling?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did you see him chopping any?
A. Saw him cutting fire wood.
Q. Hauling wood?
A. No, sir; I do not remember that he hauled any wood. Q. Well, what kind of labor do you remember to have seen him do on Sundays?
A. I do not know that I can say.
Q. Is it, and was it his habit, Mr. Dortch, to follow his every day avocations on Sundays? To do the work on Sundays that is ordinarily done by other men on the other days of the week?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is, he would perform the same kind of work on Sundays that he would do on other days?
A. Yes, sir; all but Saturdays.
Q. And you seen him at different kinds of work?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in this county?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did he do Saturday?
A. He quit his work Friday evening in time to clean up and get ready for the Sabbath, and he kept the Sabbath as he thought according to the commandment.
Q. In other words, he recognized Saturday as the Sabbath?
A. Yes, sir, he did.
Q. And he followed his every day avocations and worked at other kinds of work on Sunday?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you seen him at all these sorts of work?
A. Well, I suppose most every time. W. S. Lowry. The indictment charges that the work performed was a public nuisance, and disturbed the community. Were you really disturbed by my work, or did it interfere with your particular views in any way?
A. No, sir, not a bit. It did not disturb me any.
Q. Do you think a man ought to have the privilege of working six days in the week?
A. I think every man ought to have the privilege of working when he pleases; I think that is his right. And he has the right to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience, I think. Attorney-General. Are you a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church out there?
T. F. Dortch. Yes, sir. Mr. A. W. Fitch (an Adventist) was next called for the State, and testified as follows:— Attorney-General. Mr. Fitch, do you know the defendant, Mr. Lowry?
Mr. A. W. Fitch. Yes, sir.
Q. How near do you live to him?
A. About a mile and a half, I suppose.
Q. I will ask you, Mr. Fitch, if you know whether he follows his every day avocations on Sunday or not?
A. Well, I have never seen him.
Q. Have you heard him say that he did?
A. No, sir, I do not know that I have.
Q. And you have never seen him at work on Sunday.
A. Well, I could not say that.
Q. Have you seen him on Sundays?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What have you seen him doing?
A. It was not in this county that I have seen him.
Q. Have you seen him at work in this county at all?
A. Not within the last eight or ten months. Q. Have you within twelve months before last January?
A. I saw him loading some wood on a wagon one Sunday.
Q. Where was that, Mr. Fitch?
A. Down there near the railroad.
Q. In this county?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where was he hauling it?
A. He was putting it in a car.
Q. Did you see him at that more than once?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you seen him doing anything else in the way of labor within twelve months before that time?
A. No, sir, I do not remember.
Q. Are you a member of that church, Mr. Fitch?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it the habit of members of your church to labor on Sunday, to follow your secular business on Sunday?
A. Yes, sir, I think it is.
Q. There is a number of you gentlemen that belong to that church living in that same neighborhood?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it is your custom, and your belief, and your habit—
A. Well, I have not been a member of the church but a few months.
Q. It is their custom, and belief, and habit, to labor on Sunday?
A. Well, I think so.
(No cross-examination.) The next witness called for the State was Mr. J. C. Fitch (not an Adventist). He testified as follows:— Attorney-General. Mr. Fitch where do you live?
Mr. J. C. Fitch. Well, sir, I live in the neighborhood of Mr. Lowry.
Q. Have you known of Mr. Lowry’s working on Sunday?
A. No, sir, I never saw him.
Q. You live in the settlement where the people of this church live, do you?
A. Yes, sir, within half a mile of the church.
Q. I will ask you, Mr. Fitch, if that laboring on Sunday by members of that church is a nuisance to the people there?
A. Well, sir, I do not know; I could not say whether it is or not. I believe some claim they are annoyed, and some say they do not mind it.
Q. Of course it is no annoyance to members of that church; but outside of that?
A. Yes, I have heard others say they were annoyed, and others that it did not bother them at all.
Q. And you have heard others complain?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there is a dissatisfaction among a good element of people about it?
A. Well, yes; there are some that claim to feel dissatisfied about it; while others do not seem to care about it.
Q. It is the habit and custom of this people, so far as you know, to work on Sunday?
A. I think so; that is my opinion about it. Mr. Lowry. Mr. Fitch, were you yourself disturbed?
Mr. J. C. Fitch. Not at all.
Q. Do you know of any one that was really disturbed?
A. Well, I do not know that I could call to mind now any in particular; only that I have heard people say they did not just like it. I could call names if it was necessary.
Q. Were you disturbed yourself?
A. No, sir.
The next witness for the State was Mr.195L. J. Cox (not an Adventist), who testified as follows:— Attorney-General. How near do you live to Mr. Lowry?
Mr. Cox. I suppose it is nearly a mile.
Q. Do you live in the settlement down there in which members of his church live?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you seen Mr. Lowry engaged in his secular work on Sunday within twelve months before January last?
A. I do not think I have.
Q. Is it the habit and custom of that church, of this people, to labor on Sunday?
A. I think it is.
The Court. You should inquire concerning the habit and custom of this particular defendant.
Q. Does that create confusion and dissatisfaction among the people?
A. There has been some trouble. Mr. Lowry. Has it bothered you, Mr. Cox?
Mr. L. J. Cox. No, sir.
Q. Are you disturbed?
A. I do not know that it disturbs me. Attorney-General. Had you rather not see it?
Mr. L. J. Cox. I can stand it.
The Court. Attorney-General do you wish to argue the case?
Attorney-General. No, sir. DEFENDANT DECLINES TO TESTIFY.
The Court. Mr. Lowry, do you wish to be sworn as a witness, or to plead your case? If you want to testify, be sworn by the Clerk.
Mr. Lowry. I do not wish to testify, but would like to make a statement.
The Court. You can make a statement to the jury if you wish. STATEMENT OF W. S. LOWRY TO THE JURY.
I would like to say to the jury, that, as has been stated, I am a Seventh-day Adventist. I observe the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. I read my Bible, and my convictions on the Bible are that the seventh day of the week is the Sabbath, which comes on Saturday. I observe that day the best I know how. Then I claim the God-given right to six days’ labor. I have a wife and four children, and it takes my labor on six days to make a living. I go about my labor quietly, do not make any unnecessary noise, but do my work as quietly as possible. It has been proved by the testimony of Mr. Cox, and Mr. Fitch, who live around me, that they were not disturbed. Here I am before the court to answer for this right that I claim as a Christian. I am a law-abiding citizen; believe we should obey the laws of the State; but whenever they conflict with my religious convictions and the Bible, I stand and choose to serve the laws of my God rather than the laws of the State. I do not desire to cast any reflection upon the State, nor the officers and authorities executing the law. I leave the case with you. ARGUMENT OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL J. W. LEWIS.
I want to say, gentlemen of the jury, so far as Mr. Lowry’s case is concerned, that we have a law that points out and recognizes a certain day as Sunday, and the Legislature of Tennessee has thrown around that day safeguards of protection. It says it shall be a misdemeanor for any man to follow his secular work on that day; and, so far as the laws of Tennessee are concerned, it is a violation of that law when a man follows that work. It is not a matter of conviction as to whether he believes that his Sunday, or his Saturday, is Sunday, or the Sabbath, as Mr. Lowry terms it. And while the Constitution guarantees unto him, and to every other citizen of this Republic, the right to keep Saturday if he sees proper, or to keep Monday if he prefer, or to keep any other day, if your Honor pleases, that he sees proper, and guarantees to him the right to work according to his own convictions and his own ideas of these things, that very same guarantee is given to you and to all the citizens of this commonwealth. And the American people by law, and the people of Tennessee by the laws, designate and point out a certain day as the Sabbath, and they say that day shall be kept holy, and around it they throw the safeguards of law, and they say that no man shall work on that day, unless it is a work that is necessary, a work that is absolutely necessary and can not be foregone. Now Mr. Lowry has not gone to pull an ox out of the ditch, or to put up a fence to keep stock out of his farm; but he follows his every day avocations on Sunday. While the Constitution guarantees to him the right to keep Saturday, and protects him in his worship while engaged in that worship; and if in his church others should disturb him, he would have the same safeguards thrown around him, and the same solemn protection given him in that worship that you have in your own church, yet he must bow to the laws of the State of Tennessee; he must bow to the laws of this county; he must bow to the laws that have been made and recognized and must be enforced by the courts of this country. And if he feels that it is his duty to keep Saturday, his Honor will charge that the law makes him desist from his secular work on Sunday. It is not a question of fact at all; it is only a question of law; because he does not dispute that he follows his every day avocations, but admits it; he does not dispute that he follows the work on Sunday that he follows during the week, but admits it, and gives as an excuse that it is a conviction of his church belief. This is a question that has been decided by the higher courts of this country, that this people must respect and regard the laws of the State. It is that a man can not justify himself in the violation of a State law by religious scruples, by religious belief. It is a matter that I can not conceive how that a man who claims to be a peaceable, law-abiding citizen, can go on disregarding the day, openly, in the face of the law, openly, in the face of the protections that are thrown around the holy Sabbath as we believe it, and hold it, and protected by the laws of this State; and it is a question that I presume you gentlemen will not have any difficulty in coming to a decision upon. It is a question that has been decided by the courts, and whatever protection, whatever rights are guaranteed to a man in his own peculiar religious beliefs, no law could be enacted that would say that a man who violated the Sabbath was not guilty. It is a day that we are taught to respect, and, as alluded to by Mr. Lowry here, the seventh day we should keep holy, and protect it with the laws of the State. While I regret that we have that class of people among us with that belief,—not that we have the people,—while I regret that there is that difference, yet if they want to keep Saturday the law says they must keep Sunday; that is to say they must not violate the Sabbath laws; they must not follow their every day avocations on that day. It is to be regretted, because of the fact that so far as I know they are good citizens; yet it is a solemn duty that rests upon the jury, and rests upon the Court, and upon all the officers of the court, to see that this law is enforced. It is a duty that I take it the Court will do. So far as I am concerned it is a painful duty to me; nevertheless, it is a duty that I would not shun. I leave the matter with the court. CHARGE OF JUDGE SWIGGART TO THE JURY.
Gentlemen of the jury: This indictment against the defendant, W. S. Lowry, charges him with the offense of committing a nuisance by openly, and publicly, and habitually following his daily avocations upon Sundays. It is charged that on the eighth of November, that day being Sunday, and divers other Sundays before that date, and up to the taking of this inquisition, the defendant unlawfully, openly, publicly, notoriously, and unnecessarily did engage in his secular business, and performed and followed his common avocations of life on Sunday, by working on his farm, plowing, hoeing, chopping, hauling wood, mauling rails, and doing various and divers other kinds of work on Sunday; that this work was not necessary nor a matter of charity; and that it was and is to the great annoyance and disturbance of the people, and an evil example to society, prejudicial to the morals of the people, and a public nuisance to the citizens. The defendant does not plead; but the Court has entered the plea of not guilty. In order to return a verdict of guilty, the State must prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the offense was committed in Henry County, within twelve months before this indictment was returned by the Grand Jury. It must appear from the proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant did habitually—that is, more than once—openly and publicly perform his daily work, and did engage in his daily vocations by doing the work described in this indictment, or some portion of it; and that it was done in such an open and public way as to become a nuisance, that is, a disturbance to the community. If you find, gentlemen of the jury, these facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the offense occurred in Henry County, and within twelve months before this indictment was returned to the Grand Jury, you are to return a verdict of guilty. If these facts are not so proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you are to return a verdict of not guilty. It is not a question of religious belief or conviction at all, either one way or the other. So far as, and for the purposes of this case, and in the administration of the laws of the State, it is not a matter of any importance, or to be considered by the Court or jury, as to whether Saturday or Sunday is the Sabbath of the Bible, or as to what the peculiar religious opinion of the defendant may be, or the religious opinions of other people in the community. It is a question of observing Sunday as a civil institution under the laws of the State. If you find this defendant is guilty of the acts, in the manner, and to the extent as charged, then it will be your duty to find him guilty, regardless of what may be his religious convictions upon the question of the Sabbath. It is the duty of every citizen to observe the laws of the State. It is a question for you to determine from the proof, as to whether he has been proven to be guilty. You are the judges of the facts and the circumstances. It is your duty to take the law as the Court charges you. You are to look to the manner and intelligence of the witnesses, whether they corroborate or contradict each other in their statements. Draw from your experience, from the knowledge of men, and from the affairs of men in construing the evidence. Give it a reasonable construction, with the view of arriving at the facts in the case. There is one other matter, if you find the defendant guilty, gentlemen of the jury, and should be of the opinion that his offense merits a fine of more than fifty dollars, it will be your duty to assess the fine at any sum that you consider proper under the facts of the case. If, however, you should be of the opinion that the penalty should be under fifty dollars, it is the business of the Court to assess the fine, and you would simply return a verdict of guilty. You may retire, gentlemen. After being out about ten minutes the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The Republican Platform and the National League.
By W. H. M.
The Republican National Committee was urged to adopt the proposed Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, offered by the National League for the Protection of American Institutions, as a plank in the Republican platform. The memorial to the committee claims that— this Amendment has been introduced into the Fifty-second Congress, in both Houses, and is substantially in accord with a similar one proposed in 1876 by President Grant; introduced by Mr. Blaine, passed in the House by an overwhelming vote, and in the Senate by a majority of 28 to 16, lacking a few votes of the necessary two-thirds. This same proposition was indorsed by both the Democratic and Republican conventions of 1876, by twenty-one State conventions, and has received the autographic approval of over 250,000 prominent citizens in all parts of the country, ninety patriotic organizations, with a membership of 1,500,000 voters, and of a number of religious bodies, etc. This is the anti-Roman Catholic constitutional amendment, and if adopted into the platform of the Republican Party would commit that party to a partisanship in religion. This is an extremely subtle movement to mingle religion with the politics of this Nation, and originates solely in the sectarian jealousy of the Roman Catholics felt by Protestant denominations, fanned into a flame by the success of the Roman Catholics in obtaining Government appropriations for Indian schools under their charge, and in some instances State favor for schools nominally public, but really parochial in character. The constitutional amendment to which the Republican Party was asked to give its support is this:— No State shall pass any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or use its property or credit, or any money raised by taxation, or authorize either to be used for the purpose of founding, maintaining, or aiding by appropriation, payment for services, expenses, or otherwise, any church, religious denomination, or religious society, or any institution, society, or undertaking which is wholly, or in part, under sectarian or ecclesiastical control. The first phrase of this amendment is not offered in good faith, for the principle there affirmed, has been, and is continually, denied by those who drew and present the article. They, themselves, declare that the effect of the proposed amendment is intended to be restricted to196the rendering of financial aid by the Government to organizations falling under their definition of sectarian. They would earnestly deny that it prohibited the Government, either State or national, from promoting the interests of the Christian religion by legislation. The Republican platform did not contain such a clause as that asked, unless this can be so construed:— We declare anew our devotion to liberty of thought and conscience, of speech and press, and approve all agencies and instrumentalities which contribute to the education of the children of the land, but while insisting upon the fullest measure of religious liberty, we are opposed to any union of Church and State. It may be found, upon analysis, quite difficult to obtain any definite meaning from this clause, but perhaps that was the intention with which it was drawn; the intent of diplomatic language, Talleyrand says, is to conceal thought. W. H. M.