The American Sentinel 5
February 27, 1890
“A Hearing on the Breckinridge Sunday Bill” The American Sentinel 5, 9, pp. 65, 66.
TUESDAY, February 18, there was held a hearing by the House Committee on the District of Columbia, in the committee-room in the capitol, on the Breckinridge Sunday bill. AMS February 27, 1890, page 65.1
In favor of the bill there appeared and spoke, Rev. George Elliot, Rev. J. H. Elliott, Mr. H. J. Schulteis,—Knight of Labor—Mr. Inglis, and Rev. W. F. Crafts. AMS February 27, 1890, page 65.2
Against the bill there appeared and spoke, Elder J. O. Corliss, of Washington City, Mr. Millard F. Hobbs—District Master Workman Knights of Labor, and Alonzo T. Jones of the SENTINEL; and Prof. H. W. McKee, Secretary of the Religious Liberty Association, submitted a brief. AMS February 27, 1890, page 65.3
Rev. George Elliot said he appeared as the representative of the Ministers’ Alliance of the city of Washington, and the the [sic.] American Sabbath Union. The Alliance is composed of fifty-six evangelical ministers, whose pastorates comprise nearly all Protestant Christians of the city of Washington. He said: “We rely on the extreme simplicity of our case. The District of Columbia is practically without Sunday legislation. The Ministers’ Alliance became aware of this by attempting some prosecutions. In this attempt we found ourselves without available law, and we stopped suddenly. We kept still about it because we did not want it to become known. Although we represent churches, we do not come as churches. We believe God commands the rest of the seventh day. That is a matter of conscience with each individual. We also believe that the day is needed for rest, for the general good; without reference to the religious aspects of the question. It is true religion enters into this question in a measure, because the day named in the bill is the one already observed by the great majority of the religious people of the country. AMS February 27, 1890, page 65.4
“We ask this with the more confidence, because, with the exception of the gentlemen from California, all the representatives of this House come from States which have Sunday laws. Here are gentlemen of the Committee from Vermont, New York, New Hampshire, all of which have excellent Sunday laws. It is there-fore a very little thing which we ask. In the early history of the District it had a Sunday law—the old Maryland law; but this, without any will of the people, has been allowed to become obsolete. We ask that that which has become obsolete, without any expressed will of the people, shall be restored. Sunday laws are almost immemorial. Beginning with Constantine, carried on by Theodosius, and in England by Alfred, Athelstan, Edward, and their successors, down to our own colonial times, and from these by our States. The observance of Sunday is already enforced by the consciences of the largest portion of the people.” AMS February 27, 1890, page 65.5
Mrs. Catlin told the committee how the question of a District Sunday bill originated, saying that their feelings had been shocked at work on Sunday—“gangs of men at work in our beautiful streets on the Sabbath.” She then said that she had over 27,000 petitions to present, but she had taken them out of the safe the night before and left them lying on a lounge near a window, and that in the night they had been stolen. The thief had hoisted the window and reached irk and got the bundle. She did not suppose that he had any idea of what it was that he was taking; but took it as he would have taken anything else that he had got his hands on, as another roll of petitions lying near was not taken. She had found a few of the petitions scattered about the yard in the morning, but the most of them were gone. They were not names from the District of Columbia, but from the country at large. AMS February 27, 1890, page 65.6
Next Mr. George Elliot, with the manner of one having forgotten something, said that there was a class of Christians whom he had neglected to mention, but who ought to be named in favor of the bill—the Roman Catholics. That when the matter was up in the preceding Congress, Cardinal Gibbons had sent a letter in which he added his name to the number of petitioners; that the Cardinal represented the Catholics at large in asking for the adoption of the Senate Sunday bill.—At this point Mr. Crafts prompted him with the words “which includes this.” That is, the Senate or Blair Sunday bill includes the House or Breckinridge Sun-day bill,—each is the complement of the other. AMS February 27, 1890, page 66.1
Each is but part of one stupendous whole, AMS February 27, 1890, page 66.2
Of which the State the body is, the Church the soul. AMS February 27, 1890, page 66.3
Next spoke Mr. Schulteis. He said that he represented local assembly No. 2,672 of the Knights of Labor. He said his assembly had indorsed the Breckinridge bill. He referred to the indorsement of the Blair Sunday bill by the National Assembly at Indianapolis, in 1888, and said that every Knight of Labor was represented in that indorsement. He said he had no special instruction to appear before the committee on this particular question, but was a member of a committee on legislation, and had credentials which em-powered him to speak before legislative committees on matters pertaining to labor. AMS February 27, 1890, page 66.4
The next speaker was Rev. J. H. Elliott, D.D., of Washington City, who spoke on the phrase “Sunday excepted in the Constitution, and argued from that that a Sunday law such as this bill embodies would be constitutional. The fallacy of this argument is that in the phrase “Sunday excepted” in the Constitution there is simply a recognition of the non-legal aspect of Sunday, to which nobody objects, and there is not in it in any sense any attempt to say what the President shall, or shall not, do on Sunday. Under that phrase the President may do anything he pleases on Sunday. And this mere legal no-day is to be stretched to the extent of sanctioning an act that will prohibit everybody in the nation from doing any manner of work, labor, or business, pertaining to this world, on Sunday! If these men are willing to go so far as that with a mere non-committal phrase, what would they not do with the specific words of a sweeping statute? AMS February 27, 1890, page 66.5
Mr. Crafts was the next speaker, and spent the whole of his time, as usual, in a bitter personal attack upon the Seventh-day Adventists. He declared the greatest opposition is carried on by the Seventh-day Adventists; the counter-petition to this legislation an Advent petition; the AMERICAN SENTINEL an Advent Sentinel, etc., etc. He made no argument but this in behalf of the bill. AMS February 27, 1890, page 66.6
The next speaker was Elder J. O. Corliss, pastor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church of Washington City. We shall not attempt a synopsis of Mr. Corliss’s speech. As there were some valuable references produced in the argument, we have asked for a copy of the speech entire, and shall print it as soon as it is received. AMS February 27, 1890, page 66.7
My turn came next to speak. I had risen from my chair and was waiting to be recognized by the chairman, when a slip of paper was handed to him with a request to be allowed three minutes. The Chair said, if I would yield, the three minutes should not be deducted from my time. I willingly granted the gentleman the time asked. The gentleman proved to be AMS February 27, 1890, page 66.8
Mr. Millard F. Hobbs, Master Workman of the whole federation of the Knights of Labor in the District of Columbia, who said: “No one has been authorized by the Knights of Labor to speak in favor of this bill. Mr. Schulteis is not authorized to speak for the Knights of Labor. It is true Mr. Schulteis is a member of a committee having charge of certain matters, but that committee has nothing to do with this question. The Knights of Labor are virtually opposed to this bill. Some are in favor of some parts of it; some are in favor of all of it; and some are entirely opposed to all of it. For this reason the Knights of Labor of the District, as an organization, have refused to have anything to do with it. We are all in favor of a day of rest, some of two days; but we are afraid of the religious side of this question. What benefits the Knights of Labor wish to obtain, we think can be better secured by our own efforts through our own organizations than by the efforts of others, through the Church.” AMS February 27, 1890, page 66.9
This speech, coming as it did, was more or less of a surprise to all; but to Mr. Crafts and his party it was “a stunner.” It instantly crushed to atoms the whole pet theory which they had so nicely framed and so pathetically presented in behalf of “the poor workingmen who are so cruelly oppressed by being forced to labor on Sunday;” and of the Church’s gallant effort to liberate them from “the Egyptian bondage of Sunday slavery.” Nothing could have happened that would more clearly expose the perfect hollowness of the plea that is made by the American Sabbath Union, that this Sunday movement is in the interests of the workingmen, than did this unpremeditated and wholly unsolicited speech. AMS February 27, 1890, page 66.10
When Mr. Hobbs had taken his seat, I was recognized by the chairman, and made a half-hour’s speech which we hope to present in full in another issue. However to prevent any misapprehension on the part of my old friends, or the new readers of the SENTINEL, I would take occasion here to repeat that my speech was in opposition to the Breckinridge Sunday bill. AMS February 27, 1890, page 66.11
The members of the Congressional Committee who were present were Mr. Grout, Vermont; Mr. DeLano, New York; Mr. Moore, New Hampshire; Mr. Ellis, Kentucky; Mr. Campbell, New York; Mr. Heard, Missouri. They gave a most careful and courteous hearing to all the speakers, and we rest assured that the subject will recieve [sic.] from them a candid consideration. A. T. J. AMS February 27, 1890, page 66.12
“A Representative Decision” The American Sentinel 5, 9, pp. 67, 68.
IN support of his advocacy of the Bible and “natural religion” in the public schools, Joseph Cook has cited the decision of Circuit Judge John R. Bennett of Wisconsin. That our readers may see how it is that the Bible and religious exercises are maintained in the schools by the decisions of courts, we propose to notice Judge Bennett’s decision. This is important, not only, nor so much, for what lie himself says, but also for what is said in other decisions from which he obtains the sanction of his action. AMS February 27, 1890, page 67.1
This decision was rendered in November 1888. The cause which called it out was this: The preamble to the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin say:— AMS February 27, 1890, page 67.2
We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, form a more perfect government, insure domestic tranquillity, and promote the general welfare, do establish this Constitution. AMS February 27, 1890, page 67.3
The Declaration of Rights says:— AMS February 27, 1890, page 67.4
The right of every man to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed, nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent. Nor shall any control or interference with the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishment or mode of worship. AMS February 27, 1890, page 67.5
And Article 10, Section 3, says:— AMS February 27, 1890, page 67.6
The Legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of district schools, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable, and such schools shall be free and without charge for tuition to all children between the ages of four and twenty years, and no sectarian instruction shall be allowed therein. AMS February 27, 1890, page 67.7
In the city of Edgerton, Wisconsin there were “many” Roman Catholics who were sending and desired still to send their children to the public schools. They were residents and tax-payers for the support of the schools, and were equally entitled with all others to have their children instructed in these schools under the Constitution. Frederick Weiss and others, plaintiffs, presented a petition to the court respectfully setting forth— AMS February 27, 1890, page 67.8
That certain of the teachers employed by the District Board, having charge of the schools to conduct the same and instruct the pupils attending the same, including the children of the plantiffs, read to said pupils each and every day the schools are in session, and during school hours, certain portions of the Book, commonly known as the BIBLE, the teacher selecting the portions so read and using the translation known as the King James Version. AMS February 27, 1890, page 67.9
That the plaintiffs, and many others of the resident tax-payers of said school district, whose children attend said schools, and are under the control and instruction of said teachers, are, together with their children, members of the Roman Catholic Church, and conscientiously believe its doctrines, faith, and forms of worship, and that by said church, the said version is taught and believed to be an incorrect and incomplete translation by reason of the omission of a certain part of the books held by such church to be an integral portion of the inspired Canon: and it, is further taught by said Roman Catholic Church and believed by its members that the scriptures ought not to be read indiscriminately, inasmuch as said church has Divine Authority as the only infallible teacher and interpreter of the same, and that the reading of the same without note or comment, and without being expounded by the only authorized teachers and interpreters thereof, is not only not beneficial to the children in said schools, and especially the children of the plantiffs who are members of said church, but likely to lead to the adoption of dangerous errors, irreligious faith, practice and worship, and that by reason thereof the practice of reading King James version of the Bible commonly and only received as inspired and true by the Protestant religious sects, is regarded by the members of said Roman Catholic Church, including the plaintiffs, as contrary to the rights of conscience, and as wholly contrary to, and in violation of the law, and that they believe such exercises as above set forth, and each and all of them to be sectarian instruction, in violation of SECTION 3 ARTICLE 10, of the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin. AMS February 27, 1890, page 67.10
The District School Board, in its answer admitted that the Bible was read in the department where these Catholic children were; but AMS February 27, 1890, page 67.11
“The answer avers that such children were not required to remain in the school-room during such reading, but were at liberty to withdraw during such reading if they so desire.” AMS February 27, 1890, page 67.12
The District Board in further answering the petition, upon information and belief deny that the Roman Catholic Church is the only infallible teacher or interpreter of the Bible, but on the contrary aver upon information and belief, that every person has the right to read and interpret it for himself, and the claim of the relators in that regard is sectarian and that an enforcement thereof would be a violation of law, or that the same is sectarian, or in violation of Section 3 of Article 10 of the Constitution of this State or the Statutes or Common Law of this State. AMS February 27, 1890, page 67.13
That part of the answer which says that the children were not required to remain in the room, but were at liberty to retire during the reading of the Bible, the Judge justly disposed of by saying that, “It might be very inconvenient for the children of the plaintiffs to leave the school-rooms during this exercise, which I must regard as a part of the school exercise; and especially so, in the more inclement seasons of the year. And I am not aware that any room is mentioned in the pleading to which they could conveniently retire. And it would seem to be an unquestioned right of every taxable inhabitant and patron of the school, to have his children remain in the rooms appropriated to their use for the time being, during all school hours, and to be present at all school exercises; and that these exercises should not be sectarian in character, nor improperly interfere with their religious convictions or conscientious scruples. I may here state that I place very little stress upon the fact that the children of the plaintiffs were not required to be present when the Bible was read. Because if the mere reading of the King James version of the Bible in the public schools of the State constitutes ‘sectarian instruction’ within the meaning of the Constitution, then it cannot be read.” AMS February 27, 1890, page 67.14
Thus the main questions to be decided were, 1. Is the reading of the King James version of the Bible sectarian instruction? and, 2. What constitutes an improper and unconstitutional interference with the rights of conscience? And it is sincerely to be regretted that the Judge was not so fortunately clear in his decision of these two questions as he was in his disposal of the pitiful plea that the Catholic children were not required to remain in the rooms while the Protestant Bible was being read. AMS February 27, 1890, page 68.1
On both points he cites decisions of the Supreme Courts of Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, Illinois, and Iowa, and gives his decision accordingly: these decisions will be noticed separately, as there is matter in them of vast importance to the American people, in view of the use that has been made of them in Wisconsin. Judge Bennett presents very little opinion of his own in this decision, but what he does present is worthy of particular notice. AMS February 27, 1890, page 68.2
As to whether the reading of the King James version of the Bible in the public schools is sectarian or not, the Judge says:— AMS February 27, 1890, page 68.3
If this belief of the members of the Roman Catholic Church is sufficient to exclude the Bible from the public schools, it would exclude any and all versions from being read except the Douay version, and this also unless read and expounded by an authorized teacher and interpreter of the same.... The logical result of this claim of the plaintiffs is that the Douay version if the only version that could be read in the public schools, and this only whom read and expounded by a duly ordained priest, who undoubtedly would expound and interpret the same in accordance with the teachings and beliefs of such church. This it would seem, would amount to “sectarian instruction” within the meaning of the Constitution; and the same wrong would be inflicted upon others of which the plaintiffs complain. AMS February 27, 1890, page 68.4
It is wholly a gratuitous assumption on the part of the Judge that the plantiffs desired to have the Douay version read in the place of the King James version; there is nothing in the case anywhere that shows anything of the kind. They simply asked to be relieved from being compelled to hear the reading of the King James version. But let it be granted that the logic of the case would demand that the Douay version only should be read. Is it not just as proper that the Roman Catholics shall demand that the Douay version be read, as it is for the Protestants to insist that the King James version shall be read? Oh no! says the the [sic.] Judge, that “would amount to sectarian instruction within the meaning of the Constitution.” Well then, if the reading of the Douay version, according to the Roman Catholic idea, would amount to sectarian instruction, how is it that the reading of the King James version, according to the Protestant idea, would not amount to sectarian instruction? How is it that this would be to inflict upon others “the same wrong” as that of which the plaintiffs themselves now complain, when the whole course of this judicial argument and decision is to make it appear that no wrong is inflicted upon the plaintiffs? AMS February 27, 1890, page 68.5
If this decision is correct, then no wrong could be inflicted by the Roman Catholics in so doing, and the Judge contradicts himself and his decision when he says it would be to inflict a wrong. And in this self-contradiction he has lost his case. In saying that the reading of the Douay version, according to the Roman Catholic formula, would be sectarian instruction within the meaning of the Constitution, in all justice the Judge just as certainly says that the reading of the King James version, according to the Protestant formula, is also sectarian instruction within the meaning of the Constitution. In saying that the doing of that by the Roman Catholics would be to inflict a wrong on others, in all justice the Judge as certainly says that the doing of this by the Protestants is likewise to inflict a wrong upon others. This wrong, within the meaning of the Constitution was inflicted upon the Roman Catholics of the city of Edgerton. They petitioned the Court for relief. Their petition was refused. Therefore it is clearly demonstrated that the Circuit Court of Wisconsin, Judge Bennett presiding, does judicially sanction the infliction, upon the Roman Catholics, of a wrong within the meaning of the Constitution of that State. AMS February 27, 1890, page 68.6
We shall say some more on this subject next week; but in closing we would respectfully submit to all friends of the Golden Rule, and lovers of justice, Have not the Roman Catholics some cause for opposition to the public school system, at least in Wisconsin? AMS February 27, 1890, page 68.7
A. T. J.