PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMEND- Dec. 14, 1875. States for bidden to infree exercise terfere with of religion. State No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by school taxation in any State, for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public money not lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised, or lands so devoted, be divided between religious sects or denominations.1 to be put to religious uses. The 1 December 14, 1875, the Hon. James G. Blaine proposed the above amendment to the Constitution. It was not acted upon, however, amendment. until August 14, 1876, when it was passed with the almost unanimous vote of "Yeas, 180," to "Nays, 7." In the House, the Judiciary Committee added the words, "This article shall not vest, enlarge, or diminish legislative power in Congress." In the Senate, it was further amended, but failed to secure the necessary two-thirds vote, the vote standing, "Yeas, 28," to "Nays, 16." Both of the great political parties that year inserted in their platforms declarations on the subject of religious freedom, the Democratic party declaring: "We do here re-affirm . . . our faith in the total separation of church and state, for the sake alike of civil and religious freedom." Its favorable reception. The principle extended to the States. This was a proposition to prohibit the States doing what the Constitution, by its first amendment, forbids the national government doing. Instead of "Congress shall make no law," etc., this said, "No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion," etc. The idea was to make the application of the principle of separation of church and state here complete. The adoption of this Amendment would have rendered unconstitutional every State SunGay law in the United States. While the original States composing the Union, in doing away with their religious establishments as such, followed the principle adopted by the national government, nearly all, if not all, still retained that which was the real germ and taproot of those establishments - their Sunday laws. This amendment would have done away with these and all other forms of state patronage and Sunday laws. support to religion. The amendment should have been adopted. Since then the tide has set in the other way, as witnessed in the great revival of Sunday legislation throughout the States, hundreds of thousands of dollars contributed by the government to schools under sectarian control, and Congress besieged with petitions and bills for Sunday legislation and a religious amendment to the Constitution. Would have done away with Feb. 8, 1883. REPEAL OF CALIFORNIA SUNDAY LAW. TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE, 1883. AN ACT TO REPEAL SECTIONS TWO HUNDRED AND [Approved February 8, 1883.] The people of the State of California, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Sections two hundred and ninety-nine, The repeal three hundred, and three hundred and one of the Penal Code are hereby repealed. ing act. Second act of session. History of Sunday legislation in California. Law of 1858 declared unconstitutional. SECTION 2. This Act shall take effect from and after its passage.2 1" Statutes of California," twenty-fifth session, page 1. Almost the first thing the Legislature did at this session was to repeal the Sunday law of the State. In fact this was the second act passed at the session. 2 The history of Sunday legislation in California is a most interesting one. For six years after becoming a State, California got along without a Sunday law. In 1855 the first law of this character in the State was enacted, a law prohibiting “all barbarous and noisy amusements on the Christian Sabbath." In 1858 another law was enacted, entitled "An act to provide for the better observance of the Sabbath." This forbade keeping open any store, work-shop, or business house, and the sale of all goods, on "the Christian Sabbath," under a penalty of fifty dollars, or in default, imprisonment not to exceed one day for each two dollars' fine and costs. The same year, a case, that of ex parte Newman, an Israelite engaged in the business of selling clothing at Sacramento, was carried to the Supreme Court of the State under this law, the court declaring the law in violation of sections one and four of the State Bill of Rights, and therefore unconstitutional. Justice Stephen J. Field, one of the three members of the court, and later a member of the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Field's dis senting wrote a lengthy dissenting opinion to this decision, in which he upheld Sunday laws upon the ground that "Christianity is the prevailing faith of our people, . . the basis of our civilization," opinion. and that it was as natural that its spirit should "infuse itself into and humanize our laws" as that "the national sentiment of liberty should find expression in the legislation of the country," at the same time denying that Sunday laws are religious, or, to his perception, in conflict with the constitutional provisions guaranteeing the right to acquire property and "the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference." Opposed to this view, Chief Justice Terry, who wrote the prevailing opinion of the court, said: "The enforced observance of a day held sacred by one of the sects, is a discrimination in favor of that sect, and a violation of the freedom of the others. as a municipal regulation, the Legislature has no right to forbid or enjoin the lawful pursuit of a lawful occupation on one day of the week, any more than it can forbid it altogether." 9 California, 502. For the full decision and further comments on this, see page 434, and notes on the Christian Nation" decision, pages 487-513. Considered In 1861 the Legislature enacted another law for the observance of the Sabbath," similar to the law of 1858. In the same year another case, that of ex parte Andrews, 18 California, 678, was carried to the Supreme Court of the State under this law, and the former decision was reversed, Justice Field's dissenting opinion in the former case now being approved, and the law therefore being sustained. Justice Field had now become Chief Justice. In 1880 a law making the baking of bread from 6 P. M. Saturday till 6 P. M. Sunday unlawful, was passed "to regulate and provide for a day of rest in certain cases." In the same year this law in the case of ex parte Westerfield, 55 California, 550, was declared unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court, on the ground of its being class legislation, and therefore in conflict with section 25 of the State Bill of Rights. In 1882 the question of enforcing the State Sunday law- a combination, under various amendments and codifications, of the laws of 1855 and 1861 was widely agitated throughout the State, and became a political issue. An attempt was made to enforce the law. Hundreds were arrested, among these being one of the most prominent Sabbatarians in the West, the manager of the Pacific Press Publishing House, the largest publishing house on the Pacific Coast; the courts were flooded with cases of prosecutions; every one prosecuted demanded a jury trial; the juries would not convict; and the law proved itself obnoxious and a dead letter. Both the leading political parties inserted planks in their platforms (the fifth in each) respecting the law, the Democrats demanding its repeal, the Republicans its retention. The daily papers discussed the question pro and Chief Justice Terry's views. Law of 1861 upheld. Law of 1880 set aside. Campaign of 1882. Law inoperative. The issue of the campaign. Church people in structed how to vote. Sweeping Democratic majority. One-dayin-seven law. Not sat isfactory to Sunday-law advocates. con. The San Francisco "Daily Examiner" of September 1, 1882, said: "The law is inoperative, and its repeal would only lop off a dead branch from the tree of legislation. Sunday would remain just what it is now." Judge D. O. Shattuck said the anti-Sunday-law plank in the Democratic platform should be withdrawn, or made "the important question of the campaign," and added: "It raises the most important question that has ever been submitted for our decision, to wit: Shall we repeal or ignore one of the ten commandments of God?" San Francisco "Morning Call," August 27, 1882. The church people took up the fight, and ministerial associations passed strong resolutions in favor of the law. The Methodist Conference of California, in session at San Francisco, September 26, 1882, Bishop Hurst presiding, passed a resolution stating that "any attempt to abolish or change the day is an attempt to destroy the national life; that the civil sabbath in the republican state depends upon the ballots of the citizens; that it is the duty of the Christian citizen to cast his free ballot where it will best promote the highest interests of the Christian Sabbath." San Francisco "Morning Call," September 27, 1882. While previously the State had always been strongly Republican, the result of this campaign was a sweeping Democratic majority. In 1879 the Republican majority was 20,319. In 1882 the Democratic majority, according to the "Daily Examiner," of November 11, was 21,050. Logically and very naturally, therefore, at the governor's recommendation, the next Legislature, which convened early in 1883, repealed the State Sunday law, this being the second act passed at the session; since which time California has been without a Sunday law. Ten years later the religious element pushed matters until they secured a one-day-in-seven rest law, not a Sunday law, which, however, like the previous Sunday laws, has proved a dead letter. This law, approved February 27, 1893, reads as follows: "SECTION 1. Every person employed in any occupation of labor shall be entitled to one day's rest therefrom in seven, and it shall be unlawful for any employer of labor to cause his employees, or any of them, to work more than six days in seven; provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to any case of emergency. "SECTION 2. For the purposes of this act, the term 'day's rest' shall mean and apply to all cases, whether the employee is engaged by the day, week, month, or year, and whether the work performed is done in the day or night time. "SECTION 3. Any person violating the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. "SECTION 4. This act shall take effect and be in force thirty days. from and after its passage." Statutes '93, p. 54; Penal Code, p. 722. But, while providing for one day's rest in seven for all employees, this law has not satisfied the Sunday-law advocates. They wish a Sunday law. During recent years the most determined efforts have been made on the part of certain religious elements and so-called "reformers," to bring California back into the fold of the Sundaylaw-ridden States, going so far even as to demand a Sunday-law amendment to the State Constitution. Although having demonstrated that she has been able to get along for thirty-three of her sixtytwo years' experience as a State without a Sunday law, these modern" reformers" with medieval notions are determined that she shall have a Sunday law. Her argument against the need of such laws is bad for their contention. A Sunday law wanted. Sample of church and state persistency. As a sample of the persistence with which those bent on fastening religious legislation upon this nation pursue their work, note the following: No sooner had the desire of California to secure the exposition to be held in 1915, upon the completion of the Panama Canal, been made known, than a plan was set on foot by Dr. W. F. Crafts, to bring pressure to bear upon Congress, through a strong church and ministerial combination in California, to condition the assignment of the exposition to California upon the enactment of a State Sunday law, upon the ground that an exposition held in a State without such a law would not properly represent our national Christianity. That Sabbath legislation is not necessary in California or anywhere else to produce good Sabbath-keeping, is evident from the fact that one hundred thousand Seventh-day Adventists throughout the legislation country, many of whom live in California, observe the seventh day without a law compelling others to do so; and that Sunday is observed as well in California without a Sunday law as in other States with such a law, note the following: "A San Francisco pastor gives a like answer to the question, Where have you seen the best Sabbath observance?'Among the Christian people of California.'" "The Sabbath for Man," by Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts, page 95. After calling attention to the fact that all the States in the Union except California have Sunday laws, the Survey" of New York, for December 3, 1910, says: In spite of this legislation, Sunday labor exists practically throughout the Union in blast furnaces, iron and steel works, telegraph and telephone lines, heat, light, and power plants, newspapers, hotels, and restaurants, and on railroads and street railways. . . . The Sunday laws, then, have failed of both their religious and their hygienic purpose, and some other and more practical law must take their place." The only legitimate or practicable Sabbath law is the law of God, backed by the law of conscientious obedience to that law. If the people of California are wise, they will refuse to acquiesce in this retrogressional movement, and stand for their rights, their liberties, and their freedom as guaranteed by their Constitution, the preamble of which says, "We, the people of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution." Sabbath demon. strated un necessary. Sunday laws a failure. Freedom object of Constitution. |