|
File 8, pages 141-162 —141 Senator Blair. —Do you know whether this young man had money or friends? {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 141.1} Mr. Jones. —Dr. Lewis, can you certify whether he had money? {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 141.2} Dr. Lewis. —The case was never reported to other churches for relief. I do not know as to his personal estate. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 141.3} Senator Blair. —Do you not think it was a peculiar man who would allow his child to be killed and his wife to starve? {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 141.4} Dr. Lewis. —The case was not reported to our churches in the North. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 141.5} Mr. Jones. —About that peculiarity I will say that John Bunyan stayed twelve years in Bedford jail when he could have got out by simply saying the word “yes,” and agreeing that he would not preach. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 141.6} Senator Blair. —It was a very different thing to be called on to say that he would abstain from the performance of a great duty in his church. He preached the gospel, and he would not agree not to preach the gospel. But here is a man who lets his wife and child die rather than pay twenty-five or fifty dollars and get out, and have an opportunity to go to work for them. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 141.7} Mr. Jones. —What kind of law is that which puts a man upon his conscience to choose between his wife and child and paying a fine of twenty-five or fifty dollars? But suppose he had paid the fine, and got out and gone to work again, how long could he have worked? When the next Sunday came round, it was his duty to his wife and child to work for their support. Is he to go to work on Sunday, and go through the course of prosecution again, and again pay a fine of twenty-five or fifty dollars? How long could this be kept up? There are not many poor farmers who can clear from twenty-five to fifty dollars every week above all expenses, to be devoted to paying regular fines for the privilege of following —142 their honest occupation on their own premises. But it will be said, “Let him not work on Sunday, then he would not have to pay a fine.” Well, if he consents to do no work on Sunday, he consents to be robbed of one-sixth of his time, which he honestly owes to the support of his wife and child. For to rob him of one-sixth of his time is precisely what the State does in such a case; and it is either confiscation outright, or confiscation under the guise of a fine imposed as punishment for his refusing to allow himself to be robbed of one-sixth of his time. Either this, or else he must give up his right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience and the word of God, and so surrender his rights of conscience altogether. It comes to this, therefore, that Sunday laws are a direct invasion of the rights of conscience. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 141.8} More than this, Sunday laws are a direct invasion not only of the Constitutional right, but the inalienable right, of acquiring possessing, and protecting property. I here adopt the language of the Supreme Court of California, —language which can never be successfully controverted:— {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 142.1} “The right to protect and possess property is not more clearly protected by the Constitution than the right to acquire. The right to acquire must include the right to use the proper means to attain the end. The right itself would be impotent without the power to use the necessary incidents. If the legislature have the authority to appoint a time of compulsory rest, . . . it is without limit, and may extend to the prohibition of all occupations at all times. . . . For the Constitution to declare a right inalienable and at the same time leave the legislature unlimited power over it, would be a contradiction in terms, an idle provision, proving that a Constitution was a mere parchment barrier, insufficient to protect the citizen, delusive and visionary, and the practical result of which would be to destroy, —143 not conserve, the rights which they may assume to protect. The legislature, therefore, cannot prohibit the proper use of the means of acquiring property, except the peace and safety of the State require it.” —Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal., pp. 517,510. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 142.2} But does the peace and safety of the State require it in any such case as is here involved? Can it ever be against the peace and safety of the State for any man to follow his honest, legitimate, and even laudable occupations? It is against the peace and safety of the State to prohibit it. For, as I have before conclusively proved, for the State to do so is for it to put honest occupations in the catalogue of crimes; to put peaceable and industrious citizens upon a level with criminals; and to put a premium upon idleness and recklessness. It is certainly against the peace and safety of any State to do any such thing. Therefore it is demonstrated that Sunday laws are an invasion of the inalienable right of acquiring and possessing property, and for that man in Arkansas to have obeyed that law, would have been to surrender his inalienable right. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 143.1} Once more: As the right to acquire property includes the right to use the proper means to attain that end, and as such a law deprives a man of the use of such means during one-sixth of his time, it follows that it is a violation of that provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which declares that “no State shall deprive any citizen of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 143.2} All this, sir, is involved in the question as to whether that man shall recognize the law to such an extent as even to pay the fine. If he does, then it follows inevitably that all his property shall go to pay fines, or else he must choose between yielding his rights of conscience, and allowing one-sixth of his time to be confiscated, and in that a certain proportion of property; —144 because to the industrious citizen, time is property. But if the State by a Sunday law or by any other means, may confiscate a part, it may confiscate all. Where, then, shall resistance to oppression begin? —I say, At the very first appearance of it. Under cover of the word “Loan” Charles I. undertook to confiscate a small sum of money from each of the property owners of England. John Hampden’s share was about seven dollars and seventy-five cents. He was a rich man, but he refused to pay it; and his refusal to pay that paltry sum led to all England’s being plunged into confusion and civil war: the king lost his head, Hampden himself lost his life, and all this rather than to pay the insignificant sum of seven dollars and seventy-five cents! —less than one-third of the fine imposed upon this man for refusing to assent to the confiscation of one-sixth of his property. But John Hampden’s refusal to pay that money established the Constitutional principle that every man has the inalienable right to acquire, possess, and protect property —a right which was invaded in this case. Upon this principle alone that man was entirely justified in refusing to pay the fine imposed by that Sunday law. But as there was also involved the inalienable right of conscience, he was doubly justified in refusing to obey the law or to recognize the principle. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 143.3} Senator Blair. —Suppose he was a guilty man. Suppose he did not believe it was an offense to steal, and that he conscientiously thought that he could take goods from another in a certain way. He had been convicted under the law, and was under the penalty of paying twenty-five dollars’ fine. Is he to put his right of conscience against the demands of wife and child, and against the judgment of the community, and the State in which he lives, and to which he owes all the rights to the enjoyment of property, and everything —145 else he has? In this case a man saw all this evil done rather than pay twenty-five or fifty dollars, and he says he did that by reason of his conscience. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 144.1} Mr. Jones. —The cases are not parallel at all, unless indeed you count it as much of a crime for a man to follow his honest occupation as it is for him to steal. This, however, we have demonstrated is the very thing that Sunday laws do. But we forever protest against honesty industry’s being put upon a level with thieving. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 145.1} The man who steals takes the property of others without compensation and without regard to the question of right. If, then, the State takes from him property or time without compensation, he cannot complain of injustice. But in the case of the man who works on Sunday, he invades no man’s right in any degree; he takes no man’s property or his time in any way, much less does he take it without compensation. For the State to punish the thief, is just. For the State to punish the industrious citizen, is pre-eminently unjust. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 145.2} But aside from all this, did you ever hear of a man whose conscience taught him that it was right to steal, that it was a conscientious conviction to steal? {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 145.3} Senator Blair. —I have heard of great many instances where an individual confessed that he had conscientiously violated the law, yet he was punished. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 145.4} Mr. Jones. —Precisely; and the Christians were put to death under the Roman empire for violating the law. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 145.5} Senator Blair. —But that does not answer my question, and it is not necessary that it should be answered. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 145.6} Mr. Jones. —It is right for any man to violate any law that invades his Constitutional rights; and it is his right conscientiously to violate any law that invades the rights of conscience. God declares the man innocent who violates the law that interferes with man’s relationship to God —the law that invades the rights of conscience. See cases “The King vs. Shadrach, Meshach —146 and Abed-nego;” and “The State vs. Daniel,” reported in Daniel, chapters 3 and 6. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 145.7} The end of the Arkansas case, as reported by Senator Crockett, was that the poor man lost both his wife and his child. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 146.1} Senator Blair. —What became of him? {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 146.2} Mr. Jones. —He left the State. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 146.3} Senator Blair. —I should think he ought to leave it. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 146.4} Mr. Jones. —So do I, sir. But what can be said of freedom any more in this country, when such things can be? That is also true of six other men who followed the dictates of their own consciences, —as good, honest, virtuous citizens, as lived in Arkansas. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 146.5} Senator Blair. —There is a good deal of humbug about the dictates of one’s own conscience. If a man is to set up his conscience against the obligations to do what is right and to perform his duty toward society, an unintelligent and uninformed conscience of that kind might be allowed to destroy all society. It is not conscience always. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 146.6} Mr. Jones. —I beg your pardon, sir. The rights of conscience are eternally sacred. There is no conscience in regard to the State, however; conscience has to do with God, and with what he has commanded; and a man reads in the Bible what God commands. I here adopt the words of the present Associate-justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Hon. Stanley Matthews, in his speech in the case of the Cincinnati School Board vs. Minor et al. He says:— {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 146.7} “We may call the eccentricities of conscience, vagaries, if we please; but in matters of religious concern we have no right to disregard or despise them, no matter how trivial and absurd we may conceive them to be. In the days of the early Christian martyrs, the Roman lictors and soldiers despised and ridiculed the fanaticism that refused the trifling conformity of a pinch of incense —147 upon the altar, erected to the Caesar that arrogated to himself the title and honor of ‘divine,’ or a heathen statue. History is filled with the record of bloody sacrifices which holy men who feared God rather than men, have not withheld, on account of what seemed to cruel persecutors but trifling observances and concessions. . . . Conscience, if your honors please, is a tender thing, and tenderly to be regarded; and in the same proportion in which a man treasures his own moral integrity, —sets up the light of conscience within him as the glory of God shining in him to discover to him the truth, —so ought he to regard the conscience of every other man, and apply the cardinal maxim of Christian life and practice, ‘Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so unto them.’” {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 146.8} Senator Blair. —Should those who conscientiously believe in free love be allowed to indulge in it? {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 147.1} Mr. Jones. —There is no point in that. Where is there any conscientious conviction in free love? I cannot discover it. There is no room for any. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 147.2} Senator Blair. —But there must be laws which prohibit immorality? {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 147.3} Mr. Jones. —I ask you to define what immorality is, and then I will answer your question. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 147.4} Senator Blair. —If you do not know what the expression means, I shall not undertake to enlighten you. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 147.5} Mr. Jones. —I know what it means. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 147.6} Senator Blair. —Then why do you ask me to define it? Why do you not answer the question? {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 147.7} Mr. Jones. —Because there are modified meanings of the word which make it refer to crime. Immorality is itself a violation of the law of God, and civil government has no right to punish any man for a violation of the law of God as such. I do say, therefore, that that which, properly speaking, is immorality, the civil law cannot prohibit, and that it has no right to attempt it. Morality is defined as follows:— {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 147.8} —148 “Morality: The relation of conformity or non-conformity to the true moral standard or rule. . . . The conformity of an act to the divine law.” {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 148.1} As morality is the conformity of an act to the divine law, it is plain that morality pertains solely to God, and with that, civil government can have nothing to do. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 148.2} Again: Moral law is defined as— {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 148.3} “The will of God, as the supreme moral ruler, concerning the character and conduct of all responsible beings; the rule of action as obligatory on the conscience or moral nature.” The moral law is summarily contained in the Decalogue, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai.” {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 148.4} These definitions are evidently according to Scripture. The Scriptures show that the ten commandments are the law of God; that they express the will of God; that they pertain to the conscience, and take cognizance of the thoughts and intents of the heart; and that obedience to these commandments is the duty that man owes to God. Says the Scripture,— {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 148.5} “Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.” Eccl. 12:13. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 148.6} And the Saviour says,— {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 148.7} “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment; but I say unto you that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca [vain fellow, margin], shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” Matt. 5:21, 22. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 148.8} The apostle John, referring to the same thing, says,— {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 148.9} “Whosoever hateth his brother is murderer.” 1 John 3: {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 148.10} —149 Again, the Saviour says,— {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 149.1} “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery; but I say unto you that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Matt 5:27, 28. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 149.2} Other illustrations might be given, but these are sufficient to show that obedience to the moral law is morality; that it pertains to the thoughts and intents of the heart, and therefore, in the very nature of the case, lies beyond the reach or control of the civil power. To hate is murder; to covet is idolatry; to think impurely of a woman is adultery; —these are all equally immoral, and violations of the moral law, but no civil government seeks to punish for them. A man may hate his neighbor all his life; he may covet everything on earth; he may think impurely of every woman that he sees, —he may keep it up all his days; but so long as these things are confined to his thought, the civil power cannot touch him. It would be difficult to conceive of a more immoral person than such a man would be; yet the State cannot punish him. It does not attempt to punish him. This demonstrates again that with morality or immorality the State can have nothing to do. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 149.3} But let us carry this further. Only let that man’s hatred lead him, either by word or sign, to attempt an injury to his neighbor, and the State will punish him; only let his covetousness lead him to lay hands on what is not his own, in an attempt to steal, and the State will punish him; only let his impure thought lead him to attempt violence to any woman, and the State will punish him. Yet bear in mind that even then the States does not punish him for his immorality, but for his incivility. The immorality lies in the heart, and can be measured by God only. The State punishes no man because he is immoral. If it did, it would have to punish as a murderer —150 the man who hates another, and to punish as an idolater the man who covets, and to punish as an adulterer the one who thinks impurely; because according to the true standard of morality, hatred is murder, covetousness is idolatry, and impurity of thought is adultery. Therefore is clear that in fact the State punishes no man because he is immoral, but because he is uncivil. It cannot punish immorality; it must punish incivility. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 149.4} This distinction is shown in the very term by which is designated State or national government; it is called civil government. No person but a theocrat ever thinks of calling it moral government. The government of God is the only moral government. God is the only moral governor. The law of God is the only moral law. To God alone pertains the punishment of immorality, which is the transgression of the moral law. Governments of men are civil governments, not moral. The laws of States and nations are civil laws, not moral. To the authorities of civil government pertains the punishment of incivility, that is, the transgression of civil law. It is not theirs to punish immorality. That pertains solely to the Author of the moral law and of the moral sense, who is the sole judge of man’s moral relation. All this must be manifest to everyone who will think fairly upon the subject, and it is confirmed by the definition of the word civil, which is this:— {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 150.1} “Civil: Pertaining to a city or State, or to a citizen in his relations to his fellow-citizens, or to the State.” {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 150.2} Thus it is made clear that we owe to Caesar (civil government) only that which is civil, and that we owe to God that which is moral or religious, and that to no man. to no assembly or organization of men, does there belong any right whatever to punish immorality. Whoever attempts, it, usurps the prerogative of God. The —151 Inquisition is the inevitable logic of any claim of any assembly of men to punish immorality; because to punish immorality, it is necessary in some way to get at the thoughts and intents of the heart. The papacy, asserting the right to compel men to be moral, and to punish them for immorality, had the cruel courage to carry the evil principle to its logical consequence. In carrying out the principle, it was found to be essential to get at the secrets of men’s hearts; and it was found that the diligent application of torture would wring from men, in many cases, a full confession of the most secret counsels of their hearts. Hence the Inquisition was established as the means best adapted to secure the desired end. So long as men grant the proposition that it is within the province of civil government to enforce morality, it is to very little purpose that they condemn the Inquisition; for that tribunal is only the logical result of the proposition. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 150.3} Thus much on the subject of morality and the State in the true and genuine sense of the word morality. But as I said at the beginning, there is an accommodated sense in which the word morality is used, in which it is made to refer only to men’s relations to their fellow-men; and with reference to this view of morality, it is sometimes said that the civil power is to enforce morality upon a civil basis. But morality on a civil basis is only civility, and the enforcement of morality upon a civil basis is the enforcement of civility, and nothing else. Without the Inquisition, it is impossible for civil government ever to carry its jurisdiction beyond civil things, or to enforce anything but civility. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 151.1} But it may be asked, Does not the civil power enforce the observance of the commandments of God, which say, “Thou shalt not steal.” “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness?” Does not the civil —152 power punish the violation of these commandments of God? I answer: The civil power does not enforce these, nor does it punish the violation of them, as commandments of God. The State does forbid murder and theft and perjury, and some States forbid adultery, but not as commandments of God. From time immemorial, governments that knew nothing about God, have forbidden these things. If the State is to enforce these things as the commandments of God, it will have to take cognizance of the thoughts and intents of the heart; but this is not within the province of any earthly power. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 151.2} By all these evidences is established the plain, common-sense principle that to civil government pertains only that which the term itself implies, —that which is civil. The purpose of civil government is civil, and not moral. Its function is to preserve order in society, and to cause all its subjects to rest in assured safety, by guarding them against all incivility. Morality belongs to God; civility, to the State. Morality must be rendered to God; civility, to the State. Immorality must be punished —can be punished— only by the Lord. Incivility must be punished —and no more than that can possibly be punished— by the State. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 152.1} Here, then at the close of my remarks, we are brought to the enunciation of the eternal principle with which I began, upon which we now stand, and upon which we forever expect to stand, —the principle embodied in the United States Constitution forbidding religious tests, and forbidding Congress to make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, —the principle established by Jesus Christ: Render therefore UNTO CAESAR the things which are CAESAR’S; and UNTO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD’S. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 152.2} —153 Dr. Lewis. —Mr. Chairman. The objection raised by Prof. Jones against the exemption in favor of Sabbath-keepers, seems to me wholly imaginary. So far as any Seventh-day Baptists are concerned, I know it would be impossible for any man opening a saloon on Sunday to present the excuse that he was a Seventh-day Baptist. A saloon-keeping Seventh-day Baptist is an unknown thing throughout their history of more than two centuries. Such a man could not obtain recognition, much less church membership, in any Seventh-day Baptist community or church. Nor do I believe from what I know of the Seventh-day Adventists, that such a case could occur in connection with that people. The possibility of any such deceitful claim could easily be guarded against by a provision requiring that in any case of doubt the one claiming to have observed the seventh day should be required to bring official certificate of his relation to a Sabbath-keeping church. Such a provision would end all difficulty. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 153.1} Mr. Jones. —Mr. Chairman. It is certainly true that, so far, a saloon-keeping Seventh-day Baptist, or Seventh-day Adventist, either, is an unknown thing. But if Sunday laws are enforced with an exemption clause in favor of those who keep the seventh day, this would not be an unknown thing much longer. It is true, also, that such a man could not obtain membership in any Seventh-day Baptist or Seventh-day Adventist church. But what is to prevent the saloon keepers from organizing Seventh-day Baptist or Seventh-day Adventist churches of their own, and for themselves? What is to prevent them, or any class of business men, from organizing their own churches, electing their own officers, and even ordaining their own pastors, and calling themselves —154 Seventh-day Baptists or Seventh-day Adventists? There is nothing to prevent it unless, indeed, the State itself shall take charge of all seventh-day churches and doctrines, and attend to their organization and the admission of members. This is precisely what was done before. In the days of the New England theocracy, Massachusetts enacted a law that,— {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 153.2} “For the time to come, no man shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic, but such as are members of some of the churches within the limits of the same.” {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 154.1} There were considerable numbers of men who were not members of any of the churches, and who could not be, because they were not Christians. These men then took to forming themselves into churches of their own. Then the next step for the authorities to take, and they took it, was to enact a law that,— {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 154.2} “Forasmuch as it hath bene found by sad experience that much trouble and disturbance hath happened both to the church and civil State by the officers and members of some churches, wch have bene gathered . . . in an undue manner, . . . it is . . . ordered that . . . this Court doeth not, nor will hereafter, approue of any such companyes of men as shall henceforthe ioyne in any pretended way of church fellowshipp, without they shall first acquainte the magistrates and elders of the greatr pte of the churches fellowshipp, without their intencons, and have their approbacon herein.” —Emancipation of Massachusetts, pp. 28-30. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 154.3} By this, gentlemen, you will see that the enactment of this Sunday law, though the first step, will not be by any means the last step, and that in more directions than one. Their offer of an exemption clause is a voluntary confession that the enforcement of the law without one would be unjust; but if that exemption clause be embodied and maintained, the State is —155 inevitably carried beyond its proper jurisdiction; and if the exemption clause is retained and not maintained in its strictness, the whole law is at once nullified. Congress would better learn wisdom from this prospect, and utterly refuse to have anything at all to do with the subject. The whole subject is beyond the jurisdiction of the civil power, and the civil power can do no better than to let it entirely alone. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 154.4} But Dr. Lewis proposes to guard against all difficulty, by “requiring” every observer of the seventh day “to bring official certificate of his relation to a Sabbath-keeping church.” This would not end the difficulty; for, as I have shown, it would inevitably devolve upon the State to decide what was a genuine Sabbath-keeping church. But that is not the worst feature in this suggestion. If Dr. Lewis officially represents the Seventh-day Baptist denomination, and for the denomination proposes thus voluntarily to put himself and all his people on “ticket of leave,” I have no particular objection; that is their own business; yet it seems to me an extremely generous proposition, if not an extraordinary proceeding. I say they may do this, if they choose. But as for me and for the Seventh-day Adventists generally, not only as Christians, but as American citizens, we repudiate with scorn and reject with utter contempt every principle of any such suggestion. As citizens of the United States, and as Christians, we utterly and forever refuse to put ourselves upon “ticket of leave” by any such proposition. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 155.1} NOTE. —That my argument at first was not so unfounded nor so “wholly imaginary” as Dr. Lewis supposed, has been conclusively demonstrated, even to himself, since this hearing was held. The “Pearl of —156 Days” column of the New York Mail and Express, the official organ of the American Sunday Union, in March, 1889, grave the following statement from the Plainfield [N. J.] Times [no date]:— {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 155.2} “As a rule, Plainfield, N. J., is a very quiet city on Sunday. Liquor, provision, and cigar stores are closed by the enforcement of a city ordinance. If a resident wants a cigar, he will either have it given to him by one of the many pharmacists who refuse to sell on Sunday, or he will go to the two dealers who are allowed to open their places on Sunday because they observe Saturday as their Sabbath. Some time ago a man of Catholic faith, who had an eye to Sunday business in that line, became a regular attendant at the Seventh-day Baptist church. Eventually he asked to be admitted into the fellowship of the church. A member of the official board was advised that the applicant for membership was only working for business ends. He was closely examined by the church officers, and he finally admitted that he wanted to open a cigar store and do business on Sunday. The man appeared at the wrong place for aid in carrying out his mercenary purposes. He was not received into membership.” {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 156.1} It looks somewhat like the “irony of fate” that this thing should fall to thy very people whom Dr. Lewis represented, and in the very town where Dr. Lewis himself lives. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 156.2} Mrs. Batcham. —I should like to say that the point which has been made was a point carefully considered by the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and we saw the danger. Yet we wished to be exceedingly fair. I consulted nine persons of different classes of Seventh-day people, to know whether they wished such an exemption, and whether they would be satisfied with what was proposed. They represented themselves as being in approval of some such provision as has been suggested, —157 and we thought it could be done perhaps in such a way as to afford them the exemption which they desire, because they said that such an exemption is necessary. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 156.3} Senator Blair. —Let me ask you a few questions, Mrs. Bateham, to see if the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union understood exactly the relation of what they propose to do in this legislation. Here is a bill which relates to interstate commerce, to postal work, to the army, and to the navy. It relates to that subject-matter which is carved out of the independent, full jurisdiction of a nation by the States, which were once complete sovereignties, and transferred to the general Government. The occupations I have mentioned are all of public nature; and to carry them on, the nation has such an opportunity to invade the Sabbath-rest laws of every State in such a way as to nullify them. The nation at large is unrestrained by any Sabbath law whatever. If it may carry on its post-office business on the Sabbath, it may go to any extent, and it does go already to a very great extent, and an increasingly great extent; so in regard to interstate commerce, and so with the army and the navy. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 157.1} Now, you go to our Seventh-day Baptist or Seventh-day Adventist friends, for instance, and propose to introduce a principle by which they can carry on the post-office department on the Sabbath, just as completely as they see fit. In other words, you propose to exempt them from the operation of the law so far as it prohibits post-office work on the Sabbath. Suppose you have a Seventh-day Baptist man for postmaster. Suppose you fill up every post-office in the country on the Sabbath with Seventh-day Baptist people. You have the post-office department in operation by virtue of this exemption, because they can do the work conscientiously on that day. If you limit it by saying the —158 bill shall not apply to the Adventists and others, the bill provides that already. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 157.2} Mrs. Bateham. —If you remember the clause, we do not propose to provide that they shall be able to do this work, but that they shall be exempt from the penalty. They are not allowed to do the work, but they are to be exempt from the penalty. Therefore, unless they could prove that they had not done the work to the disturbance of others, it would be impossible for them to carry on post-office matters, for instance, or any other public employment, on Sunday. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 158.1} Senator Blair. —Is not that equivalent to saying that if the penalty shall not be enforced against them, there shall be no law against them? Because the law without the penalty is simply an opinion; it is not a law. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 158.2} Mrs. Bateham. —The law could provide that they should not open a post-office, for instance, or any place of business; and if there was a fine imposed, they would be compelled to close such places on Sunday. It was, of course, only thrown out as a suggestion from us that if it could be done, we should like to have such a provision in the bill. We are satisfied that people want the law, and if the law can, in your wisdom, be arranged with such an exemption, then we wish it; otherwise we do not. We are all glad, I think, to have the gentlemen admit that they do not want such an exemption, for that releases us from the place where we were. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 158.3} Senator Blair. —This is not to be a general Sunday law. These people all live in States, and they can work at their private occupations just the same under similar amendments to the State law, if the State saw fit to make such amendments. Prof. Jones says it did not work well in Arkansas, and I should think it did not, from his description. But these are public occupations, or quasi public occupations, we are dealing with; that of interstate commerce, for instance, carried on by —159 great corporations which are public in their relation to the working-men, because they are exercising a great public function in carrying on transportation which appertains to everybody all over the country. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 158.4} This proposed law undertakes to prohibit the nullification of all Sunday-rest laws in the States so far as to provide that interstate commerce shall not be carried on, in violation of the law, upon the Sabbath. When you come to the private occupations which are regulated by the States, if they choose to allow the Seventh-day Baptist people to work on Sunday in those private occupations, on the farm, in the workshop, in the factory, this measure does not interfere with them at all. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 159.1} Mr. Bateham. —I have not the words before me, but my impression is that there is a clause in the bill providing that the jurisdiction of Congress shall be exercised over the Territories in this matter. There is something of that kind in the bill, and this proposed exemption was designed to reach those cases, rather than apply to the general governmental action. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 159.2} Senator Blair. —You think the exemption might be made with reference to the Territories? {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 159.3} Mrs. Bateham. —Yes; that was the point we had in mind in this general action. I have not the words of the bill before me, but there is something of that kind in it which we had in mind. I wish to say also that one of the requests of our National Woman’s Christian Union was that the word promote should be changed to protect, in the title of the bill, so that it should have no appearance of what all Americans object to, any union of church and state. That amendment was proposed and accepted by the American Sabbath Union, the organized body which has just been in session in this city. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 159.4} Senator Blair. —Do you not think that the word protect implies power to command and compel? An army protects. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 159.5} —160 Mrs. Batcham. —All our laws protect us, do they not? {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 160.1} Senator Blair. —You would make this a law? {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 160.2} Mrs. Batcham. —I suggest that the bill be made a law, and that it be a law which shall protect the civil Sabbath, not promote religious worship, but protect the day as a day of rest and religious worship. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 160.3} Senator Blair. —It seems to me that the word protect is a stronger and more interfering word than promote. However, all these suggestions are important. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 160.4} Mr. Jones. —Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Bateham in her first address this morning, in telling who they are that are in favor of this Sunday law, said that she believed “the great majority of the people will approve such a law.” She mentioned as opposed to it only “the daily newspaper press,” the railroad managers,” “steamboat companies,” “saloonists and their backers,” “a class of foreigners who prefer the continental Sunday,” and “the very small sect of Seventh-day Baptists.” {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 160.5} Hon. G. P. Lord in his remarks said that “not more than three million of our population work on Sabbath, and most of this number are unwilling workers.” He said that “the balance, or more than fifty-seven million of our population, abstain from toil on the Sabbath.” {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 160.6} Taking these statements as the truth, it appears that the overwhelming majority of the American people are not only in favor of the Sunday law, but they actually keep that day as a rest day. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 160.7} Now, gentlemen, is it not rather singular, and a doctrine altogether new in a government of the people, that the majority need to be protected? From whom are they to be protected? —From themselves, most assuredly, because by their own representation they are so vastly in the majority that it would be impossible for —161 them to be oppressed by anybody else. But in a government of the people, when the majority are oppressing themselves, how can laws prevent it when the laws must be made by the majority, that is, by the very ones who are carrying on the oppression? If to them my argument seems unsound, I would cite, entirely for their benefit, the words of the Supreme Court of Ohio, that the “protection” guaranteed in our Constitutional provisions “means protection to the minority. The majority can protect itself. Constitutions are enacted for the purpose of protecting the weak against the strong, the few against the many.” {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 160.8} This is sound sense, as well as sound Constitutional law. Now, suppose in accordance with this sound Constitutional principle, and under cover of their own statements, we, seventh-day observers, whom they themselves designate as being so entirely in the minority as scarcely to be worthy of recognition, —suppose we should come to Congress asking for protection (and as all my argument has shown, if anybody needs protection in this matter, assuredly it is ourselves), —suppose, then, we come to Congress asking for protection in the same way that they ask for it, —suppose we should ask Congress to enact a law compelling all people to do no work on Saturday, in order to protect us in our right to keep Saturday; what would be thought of that? what would these people themselves think of it? what ought anybody to think of it, but that it was a piece of unwarranted assumption of authority to force upon others our ideas of religious observances? That is all it would be, and it would be utterly inexcusable. And I risk nothing in saying that these people themselves, as well as everybody else, would pronounce it unwarrantable and inexcusable. But if that would be so in the case of a minority who actually need to be protected, what, then, ought not to be thought of these people —162 who claim to be in the overwhelming majority, in their mission here, asking Congress to compel everybody to rest on Sunday for their protection! {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 161.1} Gentlemen, it is not protection, but power, that they want. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 162.1} Mr. Wood. —Mr. Chairman. As a member of the society of Friends, a Quaker, I should like to say a few words. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 162.2} I have a great deal of sympathy with people who talk about the right of conscience. I do not think the United States Government has any right over the conscience. We, as Friends, deny their right over our consciences while we act in accordance with the revealed will of God, the Bible. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 162.3} In looking at this Sunday question, I see nothing in the Bible —there is no word in it— in which it is stated that we shall have to work on the first day of the week. Therefore, I do not think the Seventh-day Baptists have any right to object to the proposed legislation. The only thing they lose is one more day’s work out of the week. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 162.4} The society of Friends has always denied the right to fight. The result has been that in the United States they have never lost a life by that means, not even during the last war. The Lord Jesus Christ has always protected them. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 162.5} I think that any Saturday Baptist who believes honestly that the Sabbath is Saturday, can depend upon the Lord’s providing for him in five days of the week just as well as if he worked six, and he will have two Sundays instead of one, and be that much better off. {1889 ATJ, NSLS18 162.6} |
