The American Sentinel 5
January 23, 1890
“The Breckinridge Sunday Bill” The American Sentinel 5, 4, pp. 25-27.
HERE is a copy of the Breckinridge Sunday Bill for the District of Columbia, which was introduced in the House of Representatives, January 6, 1890:— AMS January 23, 1890, page 25.1
A BIL TO PREVENT PERSONS FROM BEING FORCED TO LABOR ON SUNDAY
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be unlawful for any person or corporation, or employee of any person or corporation in the District of Columbia, to perform any secular labor or business, or to cause the same to be performed by any person in their employment on Sunday, except works of necessity or mercy; nor shall it be lawful for any person or corporation to receive pay for labor or services performed or rendered in violation of this act. AMS January 23, 1890, page 25.2
From the title of this bill it seems that there is enforced labor being carried on in the District of Columbia. It seems that there is involuntary service being required of people there: because it says that this is “a bill to prevent persons from being forced to labor on Sunday.” If it be true that there is in the District of Columbia any forced labor, any involuntary service required on Sunday or any other day, everybody so oppressed, has an ample refuge already supplied. AMS January 23, 1890, page 25.3
Article XIII of Amendments to the Constitution of the United States declares that “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Now the District of Columbia is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the United States; therefore, if there is any forced labor or involuntary service anywhere in the District of Columbia, on Sunday or any other day, all that is necessary for any to do who are so oppressed, is to present their plea, under this article, to any court there and the whole power of the United States Government will be exerted, if necessary, to release them from such forced labor or involuntary servitude. There is no such thing going on, however, in the District of Columbia; consequently there is no opportunity for any appeal to the United States under the provisions of this article of the Constitution. AMS January 23, 1890, page 25.4
The truth is, that the title to this bill, like that to the national bill by Senator Blair, is a misleading thing. It appears very innocent, and it would be innocent if it were true that anybody was being forced to labor on Sunday. But no such thing exists in the District of Columbia nor anywhere else in the United States. Nor does the bill in fact contemplate any such thing, nor is it in fact a remedy for any such offense. Because the body of the bill, which is supposed to express how the object, as defined in the title, shall be carried into effect, not only prohibits everybody from causing work to be performed on Sunday, but it also prohibits everybody from doing even voluntarily any work on Sunday. The body of the bill prohibits the people of the District of Columbia from voluntarily laboring on Sunday, while the title of the bill distinctly says that it is a bill to prevent persons from being forced to labor on Sunday. The title of the bill and the body of the bill do not agree. And as the body of the bill expresses the intention of those who want it passed, and as the title of the bill does not agree with the body of it, it is thereby proved that the title is intentionally misleading. It is put there as it is, to cover up the real purpose of the bill itself. We repeat, there is nobody in the District of Columbia that is forced to labor on Sunday. If anybody works there on Sunday it is voluntarily that they do it, and if it is not for themselves but for others that they do the work they are not even asked to do it without pay, much less are they forced to do it. AMS January 23, 1890, page 25.5
This is perfectly known by those who have asked that this bill be introduced. They know that anybody in the District of Columbia or anywhere else is at perfect liberty to refuse to work on Sunday. And they likewise know that such persons are in no danger of losing anything by refusing to work on Sunday. Mr. Crafts is one of the principal advocates of this measure and yet he has printed, for years, in his book, “The Sabbath for Man,” page 428, these words:— AMS January 23, 1890, page 26.1
Among other printed questions to which I have collected numerous answers, was this one: “Do you know of any instance where a Christian’s refusing to do Sunday work, or Sunday trading has resulted in his financial ruin?” Of the two hundred answers from persons representing all trades and professions, not one is affirmative. [And the italics are his own.] A western editor thinks that a Christian whose refusal to do Sunday work has resulted in his financial ruin, would be as great a curiosity as “the missing link.” There are instances in which men have lost places by refusing to do Sunday work, but they have usually found other places as good or better.—With some there has been “temporary self-sacrifice but ultimate betterment.” ... I never knew a case, nor can I find one in any quarter of the globe, where even beggary, much less starvation, has resulted from courageous and conscientious fidelity to the Sabbath. Even in India, where most of the business community is heathen, missionaries testify that loyalty to the Sabbath in the end brings no worldly loss. On the other hand, incidents have come to me by the score, of those who have gained, even in their worldly prosperity, by daring to do right in the matter of Sunday work. AMS January 23, 1890, page 26.2
Following this extract, Mr. Crafts fills six pages of his book with instances sustaining the statements which we have quoted. Therefore, in the face of their own testimony that no financial loss follows a refusal to do Sunday work, the plea that men are forced to work on Sunday is a fraud; and to pretend that men are so oppressed by being forced to work on Sunday that they must needs be relieved by the national power, is a wicked imposture. This evidence from the chiefest advocate of Sunday laws is further proof that the title of the Breckinridge Bill is intentionally disingenuous. AMS January 23, 1890, page 26.3
This bill, also, as Senator Blair’s, forbids any person or corporation to perform any secular labor or business on Sunday. AMS January 23, 1890, page 26.4
As the SENTINEL is constantly going to thousands of new readers, we reprint here our comments upon this clause in the Blair Bill. AMS January 23, 1890, page 26.5
Secular means, “pertaining to this present world, or to things not spiritual or holy; relating to things not immediately or primarily respecting the soul but the body; worldly.” Therefore this bill proposes to prohibit all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States from performing or authorizing to be performed on Sunday any work, labor, or business pertaining to this present world or to things not spiritual or holy. It proposes to prohibit them from performing any work, labor, or business relating immediately or primarily to the body, (works of necessity, mercy, and humanity excepted) to prohibit them from doing anything worldly, that is, pertaining to this world or to this life. Consequently, the only kind of works that can properly be done on Sunday under that bill are works that pertain to another world, works that pertain to things spiritual or holy, works respecting the soul, and the life to come. AMS January 23, 1890, page 26.6
Now we should like for some of these Sunday-law folks to tell us how the Congress of the United States is going to find out, so as authoritatively to state, what work, labor, or business it is that properly pertains to another world, on Sunday or at any other time. More than this, we should like for them to tell us how Congress is to find out whether there is any other world than this, and especially how it is to find this out and make it to be so clearly discerned that the recognition of it can be enforced by law upon all the people? We should like, also, for some of these to tell how Congress is to discover what work it is that properly pertains to the people’s souls on Sunday; or indeed, whether the people have any souls? How is Congress to know whether there is a life to come? And if Congress shall discover all this to its own satisfaction, then will Congress insure to all the people a happy issue in that life to come, upon condition that they will observe the Sunday laws? AMS January 23, 1890, page 26.7
These are not captious questions, they are entirely pertinent. For when it is proposed that this Nation by legislative acts shall commit itself to the guardianship of the affairs of the world to come, of men’s souls, and of another life; and when the people are asked to consent to it; it is strictly proper for the people to inquire, How shall the State make that thing a success? AMS January 23, 1890, page 26.8
The truth is, that the State can never have anything to do with the world to come or with the question as to whether there is any life to come at all. The State can never have anything to do with men’s souls or with the question as to whether men have any souls. The State can never have anything to do with the life to come or with the question as to whether there is any life to come. No State will ever reach the world to come nor will any State ever, in the least degree, be partaker of the life that is to come. The State is of this world wholly, it has to do only with the affairs of this world, and with men as they are in this world. The State has to do only with men’s bodies, and to see that the lives which men lead are civil. By these considerations it is clearly seen that this Sunday bill at the very first step leads the civil government into a field where it is impossible for it to have any jurisdiction. AMS January 23, 1890, page 26.9
Nor do we raise these questions because we doubt that there is another there is another world or that that is a life to come. We are fully persuaded that there is both another world and a life to come. But the discerning of this is a matter of faith, and that on the part of each individual for himself alone. Nobody on this earth can discern or decide this for anybody else. We thoroughly believe that there is both another world and a life to come, and anybody in this world has an equal right not to believe it if he chooses so to do. We have the right to believe this without the sanction of the Government; and any other man has a right not to believe it without any interference by the Government. We deny the right of any of the Senators or Representatives in Congress ro decide any of these matters for anybody. AMS January 23, 1890, page 26.10
Further than this, it is claimed by the advocates of Sunday laws that they do not propose to compel people, or even try to compel them, by law to be religious. Yet, in both these bills which they have had presented in the present Congress, they intend to have everybody forbidden to perform any labor or business pertaining to this present world or to things not spiritual or holy; to prohibit everybody from performing any work relating immediately or primarily to the body, or to this life. And when all that is done, or the only thing that is left, that anybody is allowed to do on Sunday, is work that pertains to another world; work that pertains to another world; work that pertains to the soul; and to the life to come; and every one of these things is wholly in the realm of the religious. We have heard of a man who was shut up to a choice between the devil and the deep sea. Those who shut him up there might have claimed that they didn’t compel him to go to the devil nor yet to the deep sea, because he was left perfectly free to make his own choice. Yet, so far as the freedom of choice goes, that man was just as well off, as the people of the District of Columbia would be under this bill; because they will be shut up to a choice between doing absolutely nothing and doing works of religion. AMS January 23, 1890, page 26.11
Nor are we sure that the people of the District of Columbia will not be actually worse off than was this other man. It is not certain at all that they will be left free to choose whether they will do nothing or do works of religion; because if men choose to do nothing at all, that will be only idleness, and Mr. Crafts declares in his book, page 373, that “idleness, as well as business is Sabbath breaking.” The object of the American Sabbath Union, and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, is to secure Sabbath keeping, not Sabbath breaking, in the District of Columbia and the Nation; therefore any man, who, under this bill should exercise his right of choice and do nothing, would be a Sabbath-breaker. And as the object of these people is to secure Sabbath keeping, it is not at all certain that such a person would be left free to proceed freely on his course of Sabbath breaking. But, by the very easiest construction that could be put upon such a law, it is certain that under it, everybody would be forced either to break the Sabbath or to do works of religion; would be forced either to be wicked or to be religious. To compel people by law to do either of these things is wicked. Therefore, the proposed District Sunday law, the proposed national Sunday law, and every other Sunday law that ever was, are evil in themselves. By such laws civil government is forced into a field where it is impossible to do that which it sets about to do. By such laws civil government undertakes to secure that which can be secured by the Lord alone, by his Spirit upon the individual conscience. AMS January 23, 1890, page 26.12
As we have proved the effect of such a law upon those who are not religious nor inclined to perform works of religion on Sunday is to compel them to be idle. This is to be enforced by a penalty of “not more than a hundred dollars for every offense.” Idleness is the prolific cause of dissipation, vice, and crime. Honest occupation on Sunday or any other time is better than idleness, and to enforce idleness under a penalty of a hundred dollars, as by this bill, or a thousand dollars as by the national bill, is to put just that large a premium upon dissipation, vice and crime. And that society can never afford. AMS January 23, 1890, page 27.1
The District bill, as the national, has a proviso also, excepting from the provisions of this act persons who conscientiously believe and observe any other day of the week than Sunday as a day of rest.” This, as said Mrs. Catlin, Superintendent of Sabbath Observance Department of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union for the District of Columbia, is directed at those who keep the seventh day as the Sabbath, and for the purpose of “taking the wind out of their sails” and thus stopping their opposition to Sunday laws. But the opposition of the seventh-day people as we understand it, is not because these are Sunday laws particularly, but because it is religious legislation of itself, whether it be in favor of Sunday or any other day. As we understand it, the Christians who keep the seventh day would be just as much opposed to such legislation in favor of Saturday as they are to this. They act wholly upon the principle of the thing and not from the policy at all. It, therefore, remains to be seen whether the wind can be taken out of their sails by any such device. AMS January 23, 1890, page 27.2
This District bill is of more importance to the people at large than many are apt to think. Because, if Congress can legislate upon this subject for the District of Columbia, it can legislate upon, the same subject to the full extent of the national jurisdiction. If Congress can legislate upon the subject at all, it can do so to the full extent of the national power. Therefore, if the people at large sit quietly and let the matter be passed without protest for the District of Columbia, they cannot protest when the same power is carried beyond the District of Columbia. The whole Nation is interested in this just as much as though it was a national bill direct. Let the whole Nation speak here! Let it speak promptly and decidedly, against any legislation by Congress touching matters pertaining to another world, to things spiritual or holy, to the soul, to another life or anything pertaining to religion. Let the Constitution be respected both in the District of Columbia and in all the Nation in its declaration that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” And let all the people say, Amen. AMS January 23, 1890, page 27.3
A. T. J.
“That ‘Bitter Cry’” The American Sentinel 5, 4, pp. 29, 30.
FROM the Pearl of Days, the official organ of the American Sabbath Union, of January 3, we clip the following:— AMS January 23, 1890, page 29.1
Some years ago “The Bitter Cry of London” rang through the civilized world, revealing the terrible condition of the neglected, suffering and wretched masses of the world’s metropolis. Its echoes have gone out from our American cities. And now another “bitter cry” comes up from the millions of wage workers and their families appealing to governments, to corporations, to employers, to ministers of religion, to friends of the toilers, and to that mightiest of forces in a republic, public opinion, for relief from the grinding oppression of Sunday work, to which they are chained by remorseless competition, the demand for profits and dividends, by disregard for the rights of citizens and their families to the weekly rest day, by open defiance and non-execution of the laws which are designed for the protection of the people against forbidden and needless Sunday work, and by the prevailing public indifference to the imperiled health, morals and welfare of the laboring classes. These statements can be readily verified by a great multitude and variety of facts and by personal and official testimonies that cannot be seriously disputed. They come from the railways, the public works, the local and general Government services, such as the Post Office Department, from the summer resorts, the Sunday excursion lines on land and water, from theaters and barber shops, from factories and markets and shops, and even from the saloons, whose employees and victims know no Sabbath rest. AMS January 23, 1890, page 29.2
This seems to be from the author of “Rhetoric made Racy” but it might appropriately be named rhetoric made ridiculous. The idea that anybody is chained by remorseless competition or anything else to the grinding oppression of Sunday work, is nothing short of the ridiculous. AMS January 23, 1890, page 29.3
This would be bad enough in itself, but when the thing is carried so far as to picture a bitter cry coming up from the saloons for relief from the grinding oppression of Sunday work to which they are chained by remorseless competition, it surpasses the ridiculous and becomes absurd. AMS January 23, 1890, page 29.4
More than this, the grounds upon which is based the plea of the American Sabbath Union for the Sunday laws which it demands, is, that the toiling masses may have opportunity to recuperate their wasted energies in order that they may have better health, may live longer, and do better work. Then when the Sabbath Union pretends to bring up a bitter cry from saloon-keepers and bar-tenders for Sabbath rest, by that it argues that the saloon and its managers are entitled to the day of rest in order that they may recuperate their wasted energies and be better qualified to enter Monday morning upon their work of destruction; and that they are so much entitled to this that the State shall step in and guarantee it to them by law. AMS January 23, 1890, page 29.5
Than the argument contained in this plea of the American Sabbath Union, there never has been, and there never can be, presented, a stronger justification of the saloon and its work. Because if the saloon is worthy of having a day of rest assured to it to recuperate its wasted energies better to prepare it for the business of the week that is to follow—so worthy, indeed, that the Government must step in and guarantee this by law—then the saloon business is a worthy work. And those who plead for the Sabbath rest for the saloon-keeper, while he still pursues his traffic, thereby justify the saloon traffic as a worthy business, equally with all other business in the pursuit of which it is proper for a man to keep up his energies to the best state, in order that he may do at all times his very best. AMS January 23, 1890, page 29.6
The American Sabbath Union, therefore, justifies the saloon traffic as a worthy business on all days except Sunday; it justifies it as a business which is worthy the support of the State in keeping up its energies to the best state in order that it may do its very best in the work to which it is devoted. AMS January 23, 1890, page 30.1
Oh, yes, by all means, let this “bitter cry” of the saloon-keepers and the bar-tenders, and all their worthy associates in dealing out hell to deluded souls—let their “bitter cry” for Sabbath rest be heard by the Government, and answered by a law which shall assure them forever one day in seven to recuperate their wasted energies so that they may enter with renewed vigor each week upon their worthy work! AMS January 23, 1890, page 30.2
A. T. J.
“That Sunday-law Tour” The American Sentinel 5, 4, p. 30.
LAMST week we had space merely to notice the fact that Mr. Crafts of the American Sabbath Union, intends to make another tour across the continent and back in the interests of a national Sunday law. He announced that those who desire addresses from him “should send early invitations, stating what months and what days of the week are first, second, and third choice. When lectures can be put at dates that will chime with other dates in the same region,” the terms are: “A guarantee of at least $15 for a week-night or afternoon; $20 for a convention, afternoon and evening; and $30 for a Sunday.” “Local entertainment to be provided” in every case. Three services may beheld on Sunday for the thirty dollars; but it is thirty dollars whether there be one service or three. AMS January 23, 1890, page 30.1
Where there are three meetings on Sunday, no engagement will be made for Sunday morning “where the church will not either appropriate $10 or more” “or give the collection.” Sunday afternoon meeting is expected to be “in some hall, opera house, or pavilion, and whatever is taken in the collection beyond expenses of rent and advertising” is to go to the cause. Sunday evening meeting is expected to be a union of “at least several churches,” and the entire collection is to be devoted “to the work.” AMS January 23, 1890, page 30.2
It is to be “understood that those sending invitations” for Sunday speeches do “guarantee $30 as a minimum;” and whatever is raised more than thirty dollars, goes to him anyhow, which, he says, is “for Sabbath-reform literature” which is “unspeakably needed in large quantities to checkmate the literature against the American Sabbath which is being circulated vastly more than our own in all parts of the land.” Whenever the collection falls short of the full amount of the guarantee, it must be made up “on the spot.” And, “the collection should be taken immediately after the address in all cases, and at once counted, so that, if it is insufficient, the balance may be secured before dismission.” The gentleman does not propose to risk even a cent’s worth, for a minute. AMS January 23, 1890, page 30.3
The “entertainment” for the tourist must also “be engaged in advance at a hotel or a home, and information sent some days before arrival as it is not always possible, even when intended, to meet the speaker at the depot, and it is very embarrassing to drive about town in a hack to get this information.” From our observation, we had not supposed the Mr. Crafts was so easily embarrassed as this would imply; because to most people it certainly is not a “very embarrassing” thing to find a hotel in any town in this country where there is a hotel; except, of course, as in such a case as this, where a man doesn’t want to pay his own expenses and wants everything cash down “on the spot.” As further particulars are learned of the proposed tour we shall them. AMS January 23, 1890, page 30.4
A. T. J.