The American Sentinel 10
July 11, 1895
“Adventists in Jail in Tennessee” American Sentinel 10, 28, pp. 217, 218.
The Bill of Rights Again Violated and Reli gious Liberty Outraged.
ARTICLE 1, Section 3, of the constitution of the State of Tennessee declares: “That no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship.” But notwithstanding this explicit guarantee of religious liberty, EIGHT Seventh-day Adventists are again incarcerated in the jail at Dayton, Tenn., for no other offense than not keeping the sabbath established by the statutes and decisions of the State of Tennessee. AMS July 11, 1895, page 217.1
Besides the right Seventh-day Adventists, one young man, not an Adventist, is imprisoned for the same offense, namely, working on Sunday. This young man, though of age, is unmarried and is the sole support of his widowed mother and his mother’s sister. He is a miner and worked in the mines near Graysville. This he did on the days the mines were operated and on Sunday he cut wood for his mother. This was in January and February of this year. This was his only offense; he injured no one, and disturbed no one. Why then was he prosecuted?—The answer is not far to seek: his widowed mother is an Adventist and she is persecuted in the person of her son. The young man’s name is Allen Cathy. AMS July 11, 1895, page 217.2
One other man, not an Adventist, was under indictment, but was justly acquitted on the ground that the work done was a work of necessity. He was absent from home on Saturday, being detained by a storm. His family was without fuel and he borrowed some wood from a neighbor and hauled it on Sunday. That he was prosecuted for this can be accounted for only in one of two ways: either the witnesses did it for the fees, or else it was because he sometimes attended the Adventist church and it was done to warn him against becoming an Adventist. The latter seems the more probable as out of the large number of men that work on Sunday in Rhea County, only the Adventists, the one by kindred, the other by some degree of sympathy, were prosecuted. This man’s name is George Dodson. AMS July 11, 1895, page 217.3
The names of the imprisoned Adventists, with the amounts of their fines, will be found at the close of the judge’s decision which follows this article. AMS July 11, 1895, page 217.4
The imprisoned men were each found guilty on one indictment with the exception of the widow’s son, Allen Cathy; he was convicted on two indictments. AMS July 11, 1895, page 217.5
There were two indictments against H. C. Leach, but for want of evidence he was acquitted on the second indictment. AMS July 11, 1895, page 217.6
There were also three indictments against N. B. England, two against E. S. Abbott, one against E. R. Gillett, one against Walter Ridgeway, and one against Oscar England. There were two verdicts of acquittal in N. B. England’s case, and one mistrial. AMS July 11, 1895, page 217.7
It was agreed between Mr. Abbott and the attorney general that one verdict should settle both his cases; but the jury failed to reach a verdict; these cases therefore went over to the next term of court. AMS July 11, 1895, page 217.8
The witnesses against E. R. Gillett could not be found and his case was continued against his earnest protest. He is a rather feeble old man of sixty four years and pleaded that his case might either be tried or else the indictment dismissed. But his plea was denied. AMS July 11, 1895, page 217.9
Mr. Ridgeway’s case was also postponed because of the absence of witnesses, against his earnest protest. AMS July 11, 1895, page 217.10
The only defense made in most cases was that the defendants kept the seventh day and believed that they had the God-given right to work six days. They maintained that the civil law had a right to take cognizance only of acts which infringed the equal rights of others; and that as the keeping of a Sabbath had reference solely to God and the recognition of his claims upon them, to enforce its observance was clearly outside the sphere of human government. The defendants insisted that under the Bill of Rights of the State they could not be legally required to observe any day, and that they had a constitutional right not only to keep the seventh day but to work on the first day of the week, so long as in so doing they did not trench upon the equal rights of their neighbors. AMS July 11, 1895, page 217.11
Judge Parks’ view of the law and his duty under it has not changed in the least. He publicly declared that his sympathies were with the Adventists, and he believes that the law ought to permit them to do quiet work on Sunday; but declared that it is not his province to make law but to enforce it as it has been made by others. He referred to what he said last March in regard to the law and declared that he did not regret in any particular the action he had taken at that time in suspending the fines and subsequently recommending the pardon of the convicted men. But, as what he said will appear elsewhere in this paper, it is not necessary to repeat it here. AMS July 11, 1895, page 217.12
The attitude of Attorney General Fletcher was not materially different from what it was last March. He simply proceeded upon the theory that it was his duty to prosecute the cases; and manifested no feeling whatever toward the defendants. AMS July 11, 1895, page 217.13
Some change, however, was noticeable in the attitude of the juries. As previously stated, there were several acquittals, and a number of mistrials, which would have scarcely been possible four months ago. It is evident that the agitation of the subject in Rhea County has resulted in quite a change in sentiment. There are good reasons to believe that there will be no more cases of this kind for some time to come, except the cases which have been postponed which will necessarily come up at a future term of court. AMS July 11, 1895, page 217.14
Of course there are not wanting evil-disposed persons who would continue the persecutions either from motives of religious intolerance, or for the purpose of securing witness fees; but a better sentiment seems to be prevailing, and it is confidently predicted that no indictments will be found by the present grand jury. AMS July 11, 1895, page 217.15
A noticeable event of the trials was a speech by ex-Congressman Snodgrass in which he declared his belief that the statute was unconstitutional, the opinion of the Supreme Court, notwithstanding. He expressed great sympathy for the Adventists, but advised them strongly that they ought to submit under the circumstances, and obey the law until it could be repealed, as he was very confident it would be by the next legislature. He said that he would remind the Adventists of that scriptural injunction which says, “Be subject unto the higher powers,” for “the power that be are ordained of God.” The ex-congressman seems to have forgotten, or never to have understood that God has ordained no human power to rule over conscience. Nor did it occur to him that to adopt his view of the scripture in question would be to make conscience entirely a creature of civil law, and would justify the condemnation and execution of every martyr from Stephen to the present time. For, with but few exceptions, all these have died as violators of the civil law. Had nobody ever disobeyed laws that were in conflict with conscience, the Reformation could never have taken place. Luther would never have left the Catholic Church; Wesley would never have preached contrary to the Established Church; and John Bunyan would never have insisted on preaching the gospel contrary to the orders of the civil magistrate. AMS July 11, 1895, page 217.16
The early Baptists and Quakers of New England and the Baptists of Virginia suffered fines, imprisonments, whippings, banishment and death for violation of the civil law. And the degree of religious liberty which we enjoy to-day is due to the fact that they dared to disobey unjust laws; and that they continued to disobey such laws until the things that they suffered brought their fellow-men to recognize the fact that there was such a thing as the rights of conscience. It is a matter of surprise that intelligent men are found to-day who will endeavor to maintain the position that it is a Christian duty to surrender conscience to civil laws. AMS July 11, 1895, page 218.1
If every man who sees the injustice, yea, the abominable iniquity of such statutes as the so-called Sunday law of Tennessee, would act upon his honest conviction and treat the statute as void in practice, as it is in fact, it would speedily be wiped from the statute books. But as long as men recognize the binding force of such statutes and obey then, so long they will continue to be used as instruments of oppression and injustice. We have not the slightest doubt of the integrity of Judge Parks and we have nothing but the kindest feeling toward him, and only respect for him. But we cannot agree that under the American system of government any man is under obligations to do a moral wrong. And it certainly is morally wrong to imprison honest men for honest work which disturbs no one. The fact that it is the State instead of an individual that does the wrong does not make it any less a wrong. A despotism of the many over the few is not less intolerable than the despotism of one over many. It is as iniquitious for the majority to violate and trample upon the fundamental law of the State as is done in these Adventist prosecutions, as it would be for a single individual to defy and to override a just law. The judge says that it is the duty of the court to sustain and enforce the law, and yet the very judgment he passed against the Adventists was in flagrant violation of the Bill of Rights quoted in the outset of this article, as his honor well knows, and as ex-Congressman Snodgrass admitted in open court when speaking for the attorney general. Can it be possible that in an American State, under the American system of government, it is the duty of an officer to override what his conscience tells him is the just rights of his fellowmen? We don’t believe that it is. AMS July 11, 1895, page 218.2
“An Unbaptistic Baptist” American Sentinel 10, 28, p. 219.
THE Canadian Baptist, in its issue of June 13, attempts to explain and justify Sunday statutes and the punishment of seventh-day observers under them, thus:— AMS July 11, 1895, page 219.1
Let us suppose, by way of illustration, that in a given community the question of Sunday laws is just being settled for the first time. Having decided that a statutory rest-day is essential to the general weal, the first question for the statesman is, evidently, “What day of the week shall be set apart as the day of rest?” He looks over the field and finds that a large proportion of the citizens, say three-fourths of the whole, are already accustomed to observe Sunday as a weekly sabbath, sacred to rest and worship; to assemble in the most peaceable and orderly manner on this day for religious purposes, etc. How long will the real statesman hesitate as to what day shall be chosen as the weekly rest-day for the whole community? AMS July 11, 1895, page 219.2
In order to aid our Baptist friend to see the real nature of this “illustration,” we will put it, slightly altered, into the mouth of a Russian defender of his established church, and the enforcement of the laws against Stundists:— AMS July 11, 1895, page 219.3
Let us suppose, by way of illustration, that in a given country the question of church establishment is just being settled for the first time. Having decided that an established religion is essential to the general weal, the first question for the statesman is, evidently, “Which one of the several religions shall be legally established and enforced upon all?” He looks over the field and finds that a large proportion of the citizens, say three-fourths of the whole, are already accustomed to worship according to the rites of the Greek Church. How long will the real statesman hesitate as to what religion shall be chosen for the whole country? AMS July 11, 1895, page 219.4
It may be objected that a law compelling all to remain idle on a certain day because a majority of the people are supposed to regard that day holy, is not parallel with the policy in Russia of compelling Jews, Stundists and other dissenters to conform to the religion of the majority. But there is absolutely no difference save in degree. The seventh-day observer who is imprisoned or put in the chain-gang in America for refusing to remain idle on the holy day of his neighbor, is as truly persecuted as is the Stundist who is exiled to Siberia for dissenting from the law-enforced creed of his Russian neighbor. AMS July 11, 1895, page 219.5
There is one point in the attempt of the Canadian Baptist to justify Sunday laws that deserves attention. It presumes that Sunday laws are first found necessary on purely civil grounds, and afterwards the day is selected which the majority regard as holy. But the Canadian Baptist has gotten the cart before the horst. There never was a Sunday act secured on that basis. All Sunday statutes originated in an attempt to protect the supposed religious character of the day, and afterwards when the doctrine of separation of Church and State prevailed; then and not till then was the civil excuse invented. AMS July 11, 1895, page 219.6
The statutes enforcing Sunday observance in all English-speaking countries are direct, legitimate descendants of the Sunday act of Charles II. This no historian or member of the legal fraternity will dispute. And now, to show that the act did not originate in the civil idea, but in the idea of enforced religious observance, we quote the statute here:— AMS July 11, 1895, page 219.7
For the better observation and keeping holy the Lord’s day, commonly called Sunday, be it enacted by the king’s most excellent majesty, and by and with the advice and consent of the lords, spiritual and temporal, and of the commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that all the laws enacted and in force concerning the observation of the day, and repairing to the church thereon, be carefully put in execution; and that all and every person and persons whatsoever shall upon every Lord’s day apply themselves to the observation of the same, by exercising themselves thereon in the duties of piety and true religion, publicly and privately; and that no tradesman, artificer, workman, laborer, or other person whatsoever, shall do or exercise any worldly labor or business or work of their ordinary callings upon the Lord’s day, or any part thereof (works of necessity and charity only excepted), and that every person being of the age of fourteen years or upwards offending in the premises shall, for every such offense, forfeit the sum of five shillings; and that no person or persons whatsoever shall publicly cry, show forth, or expose for sale any wares, merchandise, fruit, herbs, goods, or chattels whatsoever, upon the Lord’s day, or any part thereof, upon pain that every person so offending shall forfeit the same goods so cried or showed forth or exposed for sale. 1 AMS July 11, 1895, page 219.8
Nearly all the Sunday statutes to-day wear ear-marks, which indicate their religious origin, nature and object. They contain such theological expressions as “violating the sabbath,” “breach of the sabbath,” “desecrate,” “worldly employment,” “Lord’s day,” “Christian sabbath,” etc., etc. But if all these distinctively religious expressions were eliminated this would not change their nature. A rose would smell just as sweet if called by some other name, and a law enforcing all men to be idle while some pray would be just as tyrannical if expressed in secular terms and called civil. AMS July 11, 1895, page 219.9
It is one of those strangely inconsistent things that follows the transformation of a weak, minority church into a powerful majority that makes this article a necessity. Think of it! A Baptist journal defending the imprisonment of Seventh-day Adventists for refusing to obey Sunday laws when Roger Williams was banished from an American colony, because among other things, he “declared the opinion that the magistrate might not punish a breach of the sabbath.” 2 AMS July 11, 1895, page 219.10
“Afraid of the Simple Bible” American Sentinel 10, 28, p. 221.
THE Christian Statesman is publishing a series of editorials intended to show how the several Protestant churches may and ought to unite or rather federate into one “united church.” The creed of this “united church,” which is also to be the United States church, is to be “the acceptance of the divine law and of the headship of Christ.” But has the Christian Statesman suddenly become orthodox, and is it going to advocate the “commandments of God and the faith of Jesus,” the biblical creed of the remnant Church? Not by any means, for it hastens to add:— AMS July 11, 1895, page 221.1
It is not wise to attempt to make the Bible itself, uninterpreted and in its simple letter the sole fundamental creed of the church. As seen in a former article the inspired and infallible Word of God is to be acknowledged as supreme, authoritative law. The final appeal must be to that in all moral questions in both Church and State. But the State and Church must for themselves determine what the teachings of this divine Word are by the best interpretation which each in its own sphere of duty can reach. AMS July 11, 1895, page 221.2
In this case, as is usual with State-Church systems, the Statesman is afraid of the Bible. Though professing to desire that it shall be the basis of union, it hastens to explain that it does not mean to state that the commandment, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord” is to be obeyed as it reads, but as interpreted by the majority in Church and State,—that is that “the first day is the sabbath of the Lord.” And since the creed of the Church is the creed of the State, the dissenter from this “interpretation” is to be handed over to the State for punishment as of old. All this which the Statesman proposes to do is now being done in a degree. Doubtless if the program planned by the Statesman shall materialize it will result in an increase of the amount of heresy hunting and correcting of heretics. AMS July 11, 1895, page 221.3
“Back Page” American Sentinel 10, 28, p. 224.
WE are devoting much of our space these days to the cause of the persecuted Adventists, but we have no apology to offer. The principles at stake in these persecutions involve the cherished rights of every man, Protestant and Catholic, believer and unbeliever. If the Adventists can be imprisoned for a failure to obey one dogma of the ruling creed, then may the Methodist or the Catholic or the unbeliever be compelled to obey some other dogma when the ever-changing majority happens to be against him and is faith. The wise and courageous will understand this and act accordingly, but the thoughtless or time-serving will see nothing but a few “foolish Adventists” and remain silent, or with “thumbs turned down” demand that the fatal blow be struck the defenseless minority. AMS July 11, 1895, page 224.1
No one can read Judge Parks’ decision in this issue without being impressed with his unconstitutional, tyrannical, judicial legislation that he thinks it his duty to enforce. AMS July 11, 1895, page 224.2
ONE of the gratifying features of the Tennessee persecutions is that the entire local press of Dayton, the scene of the trials and imprisonment of the Adventists, is outspoken in their defense. Read the scathing words of the Dayton Leader on page 220. AMS July 11, 1895, page 224.3
EIGHT honest citizens of Tennessee spent their Fourth of July in Rhea County Jail for failing to remain idle on Sunday while the people of the established religion worshiped. And yet while these men were suffering for violating a dogma of the State established creed, the Fourth of July orator of Tennessee delivered himself of flowery periods in praise of “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” AMS July 11, 1895, page 224.4
O “MAJESTY of the law,” how many wrongs have been committed in thy name! AMS July 11, 1895, page 224.5
THINK of it! One of those convicted Tennessee Adventists is still at large!! How did the criminal break jail, did you ask? He didn’t break jail. The kind-hearted judge told him to go home and cut his oats and then return to jail! Although this condemned man is at large there is not a Sunday-keeper in Rhea County that would lock his granary or his money-drawer against him. AMS July 11, 1895, page 224.6
THE two witnesses against J. Q. Allison, the Georgia Seventh-day Adventist, who was sentenced in default of the payment of costs to twelve months in the chain-gang for plowing in his field, desire that the readers of the SENTINEL and the general public shall know that they were unwilling witnesses against Mr. Allison. Good! We are glad that they were unwilling witnesses, and glad that they want the public to know it; and consequently, we are glad to make it known. And our columns are open to a confession from the man who inaugurated the persecution, but who is ashamed to allow his name to be known. AMS July 11, 1895, page 224.7
“FATHER” ENRIGHT, a Roman Catholic priest, delivered an address recently, before a large audience in Kansas City. The Kansas City World, of June 24, reports the priest as saying:— AMS July 11, 1895, page 224.8
What right have those who are not Catholics, who merely believe in the Bible, to keep Sunday holy? The Bible says that the seventh day shall be a day of rest, and Sunday is not the seventh day, but the first. Sunday is the holy day of the Catholic Church, and every time it recurs, the entire civilized world renounces the teaching of the Bible and obeys the mandates of the Catholic Church alone. AMS July 11, 1895, page 224.9
The priest is mistaken on one point. The whole civilized world does not obey the mandates of his church. There are a few who refuse to worship the beast or receive his mark (Revelation 14:9), and eight of them are now in prison at Dayton, Tenn., for their refusal. AMS July 11, 1895, page 224.10
THE Lester (Iowa) Record, in its issue of June 14, published an account of the imprisonment at Centerville, Md., of Robert R. Whaley, the Seventh-day Adventist, who set out plants in his garden on Sunday. The Record follows the story of the imprisonment with a request that funds for the care of Mr. Whaley’s family be sent to A. O. Tait, Battle Creek, Mich., who is secretary of the International Religious Liberty Association, the organization which has undertaken to provide for the families of those who are thus unjustly imprisoned. The Record will have the thanks of these persecuted people as well as all lovers of justice and right. AMS July 11, 1895, page 224.11
ONE of the prisoners now in jail at Dayton, Tenn., said in his defense:— AMS July 11, 1895, page 224.12
“We find that Jesus Christ was a carpenter working six days in the week; therefore, Jesus did many hard days’ work on the first day of the week, and he is our pattern.” AMS July 11, 1895, page 224.13
Another said to judge and jury that they were not trying the defendant merely, but the defendant’s Lord who had commanded him to do that for which he was on trial. AMS July 11, 1895, page 224.14
Another in closing his address to the jury said: “I would rather have the frown of the whole world and face prison bars or chain-gangs, or whatever may be before me, than have the frown of God. I will say further, that I believe in my heart that if it is the wish of my God for me to meet these things, all the good men in Rhea County cannot keep me out of them, and if not, all the bad men in the county cannot put me there. I leave myself in your hands and before God as you expect to meet me in the Judgment, I trust you will decide these things.” AMS July 11, 1895, page 224.15