Arguments on the Breckinridge
Sunday Bill
NATIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ASSOCIATION.
ARGUMENTS
ON THE
BRECKINRIDGE SUNDAY BILL,
BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
AT
WASHINGTON, D. C., FEB. 18, 1890.
JANUARY 6, 1890, Hon. W. C. P. Breckinridge, member of
Congress from Kentucky, introduced in the House of
Representatives the following bill:–
A BILL 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 employe 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.
Any person or corporation, or employe of any person or
corporation in the District of Columbia, who shall violate the
provisions of this act, shall, upon conviction thereof, be
punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars for
very such offense: Provided, however, That the provisions of this
act shall not be construed to apply to any person or persons
who conscientiously believe in and observe any other day of the
week than Sunday as a day of rest.
4
The bill was referred to the Committee on District of Columbia.
That committee is composed of the following-named gentlemen:
Mr. Grout, Vermont, chairman; Mr. Atkinson, Pennsylvania; Mr.
Post, Illinois; Mr. De Lano, New York; Mr. Snider, Minnesota; Mr.
Burton, Ohio; Mr. Moore, New Hampshire; Mr. Hemphill, South
Carolina; Mr. Heard, Missouri; Mr. Lee, Virginia; Mr. Compton,
Maryland; Mr. Campbell, New York; and Mr. Ellis, Kentucky.
The chairman of the committee referred the bill to the subcommittee
on Education, Labor, and Charitable Institutions, which
is composed of the following-named gentlemen: Mr. De Lano,
chairman; Mr. Moore, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Ellis.
Tuesday, February 18, 1890, the sub committee gave a hearing
on the bill. Of the sub-committee there were present, Mr. De
Lano, in the cha r, Mr. Moore, and Mr. Ellis.
Besides these there were present of the whole committee, Mr.
Grout, Mr. Heard, and Mr. Campbell, making six, in all, of the
whole committee present.
In favor of the bill the following persons spoke: Rev. George
Elliott, Rev. J. H. Elliott. Mr. H. J. Schulteis–Knight of Labor–and
Rev. W. F. Crafts.
In opposition to the bill the following persons spoke: Elder J. O.
Corliss, Mr. Millard F. Hobbs, District Master Workman of District
Assembly 66, Knights of Labor, and Alonzo T. Jones, editor of the
AMERICAN SENTINEL. In addition to this, Prof. W. H. McKee,
secretary of the National Religious Liberty Association, submitted
a brief.
5
The arguments in opposition to the bill are here printed in the
order in which they were delivered. The points made by those who
spoke in favor of the bill are answered in the arguments here given.
SPEECH OF ELDER J. O. CORLISS
Mr. Corliss.–MR. CHAIRMAN: I have little time for
preliminaries, and none for personalities. I have, however, some
arguments to present against the bill under consideration, merely
pausing to say that I thank the last speaker [Mr. Crafts] for his
confession of lack of argument in support of the bill, which he has
shown in the fact of his having indulged in personalities the most of
the time allotted to him. I can use my time to better advantage. I
will use only a half hour, then yield a half hour to Mr. Jones, of
New York. Mr. McKee, also, has a brief; which he will present for
consideration.
The Chairman.–We desire to know in whose behalf you appear.
Mr. Corliss.–I reside in this city, sir, with my family. I speak in
behalf of the Seventh-day Adventist Church of Washington, of
which I am, at present, the pastor; as a citizen of the United States,
end as a resident of this District, I appear, not, as has been
affirmed before you, to speak in behalf of a Saturday Sabbath. Far
from it, gentlemen of the committee. If this bill, No. 3854, were to
have incorporated in it, instead of "Sunday, or the first day of the
week," the words "Saturday, or the seventh day of the week," there
is no one who would oppose it stronger than I. And I would oppose
it just as strongly as I do in its present form, for the reason that it is
not
6
sectarianism that calls us here to-day; but we see in this bill a
principle of religious legislation that is dangerous, not to our
liberties in particular, but to the liberties of the nation. For, as you
perceive, this bill has an exemption clause providing that "this act
shall not be construed to apply to any person or persons who
conscientiously believe in, and observe, another day of the week
than Sunday as a day of rest." This fact gives us more courage to
oppose the measure, because we know that all fair-minded people
will be able to see that our opposition arises from a broader and
higher motive than that of self-interest. There are then, sir, good
reasons why we maintain the attitude in which we are found to-day,
and which we will shortly proceed to lay before you.
But before doing this I desire to call your attention to this roll of
petitions which I hold in my hand. Here are 7,649 personal
signatures, obtained in this city, praying that this bill, or any one of
similar import, shall not become the law of this District. But, in
order to belittle the efforts against this proposed Sunday law, the
statement has been made in your hearing that these signatures were
gathered on the street corners and other public places, in a hurried
manner, and, in many instances, from people who were deceived as
to the nature of the document to which they were giving their
signatures; but, gentlemen of the committee, these names have not
been thus gathered. On this roll appear the autographs of the
leading citizens and business men of Washington men whose
intelligence and business capacity are well known. And what
method has been adopted by which
7
to secure these names? Well, sirs, in most cases petitions were
placed in their hands, accompanied with printed slips giving
sixteen reasons why the petitions should have their signatures.
These were left with them a week or more, according to
circumstances, thus giving them ample time to weigh the matter
carefully. When they were waited on, to receive the petitions from
their hands, many have said they would gladly sign them. Now if
these people were deceived, it must be because their intelligence is
below the average, and I am not prepared to say that of the citizens
of Washington and the District of Columbia. If the gentleman
whose criticism I am now noticing, wishes to assume that such is
the condition of the people here, let him bear the responsibility.
But this is enough on that point. I will now pay attention to the bill
itself.
The title of it is, "A bill to prevent persons from being forced to
labor on Sunday." This title is an incongruous one, because the bill
makes no provision whatever to prevent one person from forcing
another to work on Sunday. Neither does it propose to punish for
doing such a thing. It does, however, propose to punish by a fine
anyone who works on that day, whether forced or not. There must
be some reason for giving the bill so misleading a title, and that
reason will, perhaps, be shown before we get through with this
discussion. The fact is, no one in the District of Columbia, or in
any other part of the United States, is being forced to labor on
Sunday. If he were, he has redress already, without the enactment
of this bill into law, and that by the Constitution of the United
States.
8
Article 13 of amendments to that instrument, 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." But it was claimed by Mr. Crafts that a man is
compelled to labor on Sunday, when he is asked to do so, or give
up his position, if he refuses. It is true that in such a case a man has
to take his choice between two things offered him, but if he chooses
to do that which he believes to be wrong, the act is entirely
voluntary on his part. If any man has not the courage to do right
under such temptation, his love of right and faith in Christianity
are, to say the least, so very weak that such a law as this bill
contemplates could not help him any. Gentlemen, you cannot
make a man a Christian by law.
But no case has been stated where a man ever lost a position by
refusing to work on Sunday. On the contrary, Mr. Crafts himself
says in this document [holding it up] just published, entitled
"Addresses on the Civil Sabbath"–
"I have searched the world over in vain for an affirmative
answer to the question, Did you ever know a man financially
ruined by refusing to do Sunday work? I have found scores of
instances where courageous conscientiousness in this matter led
to promotion, none where it led to poverty."
Mr. Crafts.–Read on. That is not a fair quotation.
Mr. Corliss–I will; the next word is, "Applause!" and that is all
there is in this little document on the point. The rest will be found
in Mr. Crafts' book
9
entitled "The Sabbath for Man," p. 428, which will be further
quoted from before the hearing is through. But I have heard the
gentleman say repeatedly, in his public lectures, that he has written
to every nation under heaven except Afghanistan, asking this
question, but always with the same result. It is, therefore, not true
