The American Sentinel 8
February 16, 1893
“Editorial” The American Sentinel 8, 7, p. 49.
NOW that Congress has gone beyond the Constitution on one point, for religion’s sake, and has legislated to close the World’s Fair on Sunday, it may, for the same reason, go beyond it on any or every point. AMS February 16, 1893, page 49.1
THE Congress of the United States had no right to put the Bible into its legislation and make it the basis of any legislative measure. The Constitution is the proper basis of congressional legislation, not the Bible. But the Constitution has been ignored and legislation had upon an assumed Biblical basis. To reach this the Constitution has been violated, the word of God has been blasphemed, and a statutory misinterpretation of a divine commandment has been had. AMS February 16, 1893, page 49.2
THE commandment says the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord; but in the face of this plain declaration the Senate of the United States has put its own interpretation upon that commandment, and has declared that the statement “the seventh day is the Sabbath” means “the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.” Thus the Congress of the United States has taken the fourth commandment from the Bible and put it into its legislation, and has put its own interpretation upon the divine statute. AMS February 16, 1893, page 49.3
IF Congress can do this in one case, can interpret the Bible in one point, it can do it in any case; it can interpret the Bible on every point. When Congress went beyond the Constitution in this, as it did, it put itself and the Government in line with all the Church and State governments that have ever been, and assumed to itself to be the interpreter of the Bible for all the people in the land, and for all who come into the land. More than that, it not only assumed to itself the right and the authority to interpret and enforce divine law as such, but in doing that it put the stamp of its legislative approval upon a given religious and doctrinal belief. It made an adherence to that belief and observance distinctively necessary to citizenship under this Government. It built a surer foundation for that line of judicial precedent in religious law for which there has never heretofore been any adequate basis. AMS February 16, 1893, page 49.4
THIS is not strictly an adequate basis, but it will no doubt be accepted as such, in connection with the Supreme Court decision that this is a “Christian Nation.” It may be that the Supreme Court will be called upon during the coming year to state its position upon this definitely, and not in general terms. This may be brought about through the question of State rights, as to whether Congress has any jurisdiction within the municipality of Chicago by which it may enforce the Sunday-closing proviso, or lay any penalty for its non-observance. It may come through an appeal from the lower courts of some case brought under a religious statute or judicial precedent. However it may come it is not probable that the Supreme Court can long avoid the responsibility of defining directly the position which it has taken in the case of the Church of the Holy Trinity of New York. When that point is reached the Supreme Court will face an awkward alternative. It will be necessary either to antagonize openly the First Amendment to the Constitution, and indirectly the Tenth Amendment by assuming for Congress powers which have not been granted to it; or the opinion of Justice Brewer that this is a “Christian Nation,” and in which the entire bench concurred, will have to be overruled. AMS February 16, 1893, page 49.5
THE possibilities, rather even the probabilities, of the continuance of the Sunday-closing contest as regards the World’s Fair,—and of appeal to the highest court of Sunday-law cases on their merits,—are fraught with much that is uncomfortable to the occupants of the Supreme Bench. Congress took the fatal step in haste last session. In shame at the position in which it finds itself and in fear of the Church party it refuses now to retrace its steps, or even consider the propriety of so doing. When the Supreme Court is put in a similar position what will be its attitude? Will it refuse to review or antagonize the Brewer decision and allow this revolution to take its course? AMS February 16, 1893, page 49.6
“Extract from Address of A. T. Jones Before the House Committee on World’s Fair for Repeal of Sunday Legislation” The American Sentinel 8, 7, p. 52.
THREE distinct considerations in the Constitution of the United States forbid Congress to touch this question. The first is well defined by George Bancroft in a letter which he wrote to Dr. Philip Schaff, August 30, 1887, which reads as follows:— AMS February 16, 1893, page 52.1
My Dear Dr. Schaff: I have yours of the 12th. By the Constitution no power is held by Congress except such as shall have been granted to it. Congress, therefore from the beginning, was as much without the power to make a law respecting the establishment of religion as it is now after the amendment has been passed. The power had not been granted and therefore did not exist, for Congress has no powers except such as are granted, but a feeling had got abroad that there should have been a bill of Rights and therefore to satisfy the craving, a series of articles were framed in the nature of a bill of Rights, not because such a declaration was needed, but because the people wished to see certain principles distinctly put forward as a part of the Constitution. The First Amendment, so far as it relates to an establishment of religion, was proposed without passion, accepted in the several States without passion, and so found its place as the opening words of the amendments in the quietest manner possible. AMS February 16, 1893, page 52.2
GEORGE BANCROFT. AMS February 16, 1893, page 52.3
This is shown by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution which says that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” As no power has been granted to Congress on the subject of religion, that is reserved to the States or to the people. That is where we ask that this shall be left,—just where the Constitution has left it. It is a question reserved to the States. It is for the State of Illinois alone, so far as any State can have anything to say upon the subject, to say whether that Fair shall be opened or shut on Sunday. If the State of Illinois should not say anything on the subject, it is still left with the people. It is for the people in their own capacity as such, to act as they please in the matter, without any interference or dictation by Congress. AMS February 16, 1893, page 52.4
Not only is that so on that point, but if the Constitution had not said a word on the subject of religion, there would have been no power in Congress to touch this question. But the people have spoken; the constitution has spoken and denied the right of the United States government to touch the question and has reserved that right to the States or to the people. Not only did it do that but it went further and actually prohibited the government of the United States from touching the question. This lack of power would have been complete and total without the prohibition, because the powers not delegated are reserved. But they went further and not only reserved this power but expressly prohibited Congress from exercising it. It is trebly unconstitutional for Congress to touch the question. It was so at the beginning of the government, and this is why we insist that this legislation shall be undone, and leave it where the Constitution has left it—to the States or to the people. AMS February 16, 1893, page 52.5
Mr. Houk,—a member of the Committee.—The language of the Constitution, I believe, is that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. AMS February 16, 1893, page 52.6
Mr. Jones.—I am going to follow this question a little further and notice that amendment. The amendment does not read, as it is often misquoted, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion;” but “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” There are two meanings in this clause. When the Constitution was made, all that it said upon this subject was that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Some of the States had established religions at the time; I think all except Virginia. Virginia had released herself in a campaign directly touching this question. The first part of the clause was intended to prohibit Congress from making any law respecting any of these religions which were established already in those States, and the second part of the clause prohibits Congress from touching the subject of religion on its own part, in any way. In the State of Virginia from 1776—with the exception of the interval when the war was highest—to December 26, 1787, there was a campaign conducted over the same question that is now involved in this legislation. The English Church was the established church in Virginia, and the Presbyterians, the Quakers, and the Baptists sent a memorial to the General Assembly of Virginia, asking that as the Colonies had declared themselves free and independent of British rule in civil things, so the State of Virginia should declare itself free from British rule in religious things and that they should not be taxed to support a religion which they did not believe, nor even any religion which they did believe. And the English Church was disestablished. Then a movement was made to establish the Christian religion and to legislate in favor of the Christian religion by passing a bill establishing a provision for teachers of that religion. Madison and Jefferson took the opposition to that bill, and by vigorous efforts defeated it, and in its place secured the passage of a bill establishing religious freedom in Virginia, which is the model of all the state constitutions from that day to this, on the subject of religion and the State. AMS February 16, 1893, page 52.7
Now then, that campaign in Virginia against the establishment of the Christian religion there, embodied the same principle that is involved in this legislation of today, and as that was distinctly shut out, so we ask that this shall be also and Congress and the Government step back to the place where it was before and where it belongs. Madison went right out of that campaign into the convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, and carried with him into that convention the principles which he had advocated in the campaign and put those principles into the United States Constitution, and the intention of all was, and is, that Congress shall have nothing at all to do with the subject of religious observances. AMS February 16, 1893, page 52.8
Washington in 1797, made a treaty with Tripoli, which explicitly declared that “the government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion.” And when Congress has legislated upon this question with direct reference to the Christian religion, therein again it has gone contrary to the express intent of those who made the Constitution and established the supreme law, as expressed in their own words. And for this reason we ask that the thing shall be undone and Congress put the government right back where it was before that legislation was established, and leave the question where it belongs. AMS February 16, 1893, page 52.9
The Constitution prohibits this legislation; and when the Constitution prohibits it, then ought not the legislation to be undone? AMS February 16, 1893, page 52.10