A lesson not yet learned. Mr. King's prosecution. Actual results of Sunday laws. Rights should be guaranteed. Freedom is right to differ. Mr. King's belief. "A poor rule that don't work both ways." It is an old mistake to seek to crush out honest convictions by fire and sword, and one which it seems the world should have learned by this time. The great trouble is, many of our legislators, courts, and lawyers do not know the history of nations, not even the early history of our own country; and consequently they are repeating old experiments, that not only have failed ages ago, but have ended in the direst cruelties. It would be fortunate for this country if every citizen would look into the political history of the past few centuries and examine carefully the evolution of the American political system, and learn that it is not the business of courts or legislatures to interfere with things purely religious. The unjust results of this trial come from the existence of a rigid Sunday law on the statute books of Tennessee, which Mr. King's fellowcitizens, who are entitled to no more protection from the government or the State than himself, have seen fit to take advantage of on account of a difference of religious belief. This manifest injustice should cause not only those who have been the immediate promoters of the prosecution to blush for shame, but every one who is helping forward any movement to have laws enacted throughout the country by which such advantage can be taken. Those who favor the enactment of such laws may paint in fancy sketches the beneficient results which they claim will come from them; but the above case presents solid facts which show the legitimate and actual results of such laws put into effect. No such laws should ever be enacted or allowed to remain upon our statute books. The only safety lies in keeping our statute books free from such laws, and let religious questions be fought out solely upon religious grounds. It must be apparent to every intelligent and candid person that a man has the right and should have the privilege of using his time upon his own premises as he sees fit, and not be compelled to conform to the religious opinions and customs of the majority around him. Otherwise, religious freedom is simply freedom to believe and act as do the majority, which is no freedom. The historian Ridpath says, "Essential freedom is the right to differ, and that right must be sacredly respected." Mr. King's difference of practice in the keeping of a day is due to conscientious belief. He observes the seventh day because he believes that is the day enjoined by the Sabbath commandment. He believes that this was the day set apart at creation, observed by the chosen people of God, kept by Christ and the apostles, and never divinely changed. He certainly has a right to believe this, the same as others have to believe otherwise. His belief and practice in this matter should be no more occasion of disturbance to those who believe otherwise than are their belief and practice to him. But if he has rights of conscience which cannot be secured under this government, then religious freedom here is at an end. It remains to be seen whether religious liberty in this country is a reality, or only an empty boast. SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE. THE BRIEF SUBMITTED BY COLONEL T. E. RICHARDSON IN THE CASE OF 1890. Can there be any doubt that the act of 17411 was passed to favor and promote Christianity, and also the interests of the Church of England, then the religion and church of the state? Is it not equally plain that the act of 1803 was passed to promote and give preference to the Christian religion? that it was passed to prevent the profanation of a day sacred to certain persons claiming to be members of the Christian church, or of certain sects of Christians? This court knows historically, if not judicially, of the wonderful revivals and wide-spread religious excitement in the year 1800. They created a deep and lasting impression upon the people. They prevailed most extensively throughout the States of Kentucky and Tennessee. They were conducted principally by the Presbyterians and Methodists, and the power and influence then obtained by the latter, are felt and seen to the present time. That the act of 1803 was the result of those revivals, and passed in obedience to the behests of those churches and to conform to their religious views, no one can doubt. That the law was enacted to compel the observance of Sunday in conformity with their tenets, and to coerce the conscience of all persons who might differ with those sects, can be denied by no candid mind. By those acts exclusive jurisdiction was given to justices of the peace, to try, and punish, those who violated their provisions. For nearly a century no member of the bench or bar ever dreamed or held that the circuit courts of the State had jurisdiction over the offense, as created by those acts. For a half century or more after the passage of the act of 1803, it was regarded as the expression of earnest but fanatical zeal, and was allowed to fall into "innocuous desuetude." It is the fit instrument of petty persecution, and has been seldom used, even by the most earnest of zealots. To the credit of the Christian people of the State, it can be truly said, they have generally scorned to use such means of persecution or coercion. 1 An act passed under Governor Gabriel Johnson, Esq., by and with the consent of King George II's council, and the General Assembly of the province of North Carolina, when the church was a part of the state. It required that "all and every person or persons whatsoever shall on the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday, carefully apply themselves to the duties of religion and piety." The fine for each offense was one dollar and twenty-five cents. 2 This is admitted by Rev. W. F. Crafts, one of the leading advocates of Sunday laws in this country. In the "Christian Statesman" of July 3, 1890, he said: "During nearly all our American history, the churches have influenced the States to make and improve Sabbath laws," Jealous defenders of liberty. Judicial legislation. Why is Sunday work a nuisance? Sunday law unconstitutional. system not founded on Christianity. Equality of all religions. The framers of the Constitution have ever been jealous of any attempt to interfere with the rights of conscience, or the domination of any church or religious sect. In recent years, efforts have been made to revive and enforce the law of 1803, and by judicial legislation, the offense enacted by that act has been declared a nuisance at common law. . Why is the act complained of declared to be immoral and unlawful? Why are a succession of such acts declared to be a nuisance and indictable? Because they have been done on Sunday? Then it must be because it is repugnant to the religious views of the community. If it is a nuisance, why is it not such on Monday or Saturday, as well as on Sunday? The answer is, Because the work is done on Sunday. If it is an offense because done on Sunday, then the law declaring such acts to be illegal and immoral is a religious law, enacted for the purpose of favoring some religion. If that be so, then the law is in violation of the Constitution. 1 The government, State or federal, can in no sense be said to be Our political founded or based upon Christianity. No preference can be given to any religion. All religions are alike protected. The followers of Mahomet, the disciples of Confucius, the believers in Buddha, as well as the worshipers of the true and living God, are entitled to like protection, and are secured in the enjoyment of the same rights. In this State, in this nation, there is no such thing as " religious toleration." 2 Every man enjoys the same right of conscience, and is responsible to no earthly tribunal for his religious faith and worship. The assumption, therefore, that Christianity is a part of the law of the land, is inconsistent with the spirit of our institutions, as well as in violation of the reserved, accepted, and inalienable rights of the people. . . An inconsistent assumption. Praiseworthy labor. A perversion of law. Sunday labor not a nuisance. It goes without saying that plowing, the occupation of the farmer, is necessary for the comfort, and even the existence, of the citizens. Can it be said with propriety or reason, that this act so essential for the welfare of society, so commendable when done on Monday, when done on Sunday becomes offensive, immoral, and a common nuisance? Is it not true that to hold that it becomes a nuisance when carried on on Sunday, is a perversion of the term "nuisance" ?3 1 For a discussion of this question, see Hon. Allan G. Thurman's decision. nage 419; opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio, page 460; Jefferson's Essay on Christianity and the Common Law," page 208; Tripolitan treaties, ante pages 162, 164. 2 See Report of the United States Senate, ante page 233, and note. On this point, Colonel Richardson, on pages 2 and 3 of his brief, said: "The acts complained of and proven, do not constitute a nuisance, as defined by this court in State v. Lorry, 7 Baxter, 95. A nuisance is something that injuriously affects the comfort, or welfare, or enjoyment of human existence, and must affect all alike who come within its influence. It must be something more than a mere spiritual discomfort. In determining as to a nuisance, the true rule seems to be that the act or thing complained of affects all alike who come within its influence. It is not a nuisance to one of peculiar sentiments, feelings, or tastes, if it would not affect others or all tastes; not to a sectarian, if it would not be so to one belonging to no church. It must be something about the effects of which all agree. See Sparhawk v Union Pass Railroad Co., Pennsylvania State, 51, P. F. Smith, volume 4, page 427 The establishment of Sunday as a day of rest and worship, grew out of the union of church and state, was commanded by ecclesiastical law, and the enforcement of its observance is contrary to the spirit and purpose of our form of government. ... It was the spirit of the Sunday laws that banished Baptists, whipped the Quakers, and hung and burned women as witches, in the pious New England States.1 Such laws have found favor and a congenial home only when there has been a union of church and state. On such legislation is based the statements and utterances of Mr. Blackstone, in his commentaries referred to, and relied on as authority by this court, in the cases herein cited. They are contrary to the letter and spirit of our Constitution and of free government. No human law has a right to interfere with a man's religious belief, his freedom of conscience, his right to worship his Creator when and how he will, so long as he does not trespass on the rights of others. Sunday laws grew out of church and state. Contrary to our Con stitution. Constitution for protection Our written Constitutions and our laws were made and intended for the protection of minorities for the protection of the weak against the of minorities. strong. Majorities and the powerful can protect themselves. But it is insisted that the act of 1803 and the opinions in Gunter v. the State and Parker v. the State, do not require that he shall work on Saturday, the Sabbath. Admitted. But they do coerce his conscience. They do require him to keep and observe a day he does not believe to be holy or sacred -a day he knows his Creator does not require him to keep. They do compel him to a religious observance repulsive to his conscience. They do give preference to a mode of worship which is contrary to his faith. It is conceded that in following his usual avoca Compulsion in Sunday laws. Nature work. The proof shows that the work charged in the indictment was done by King in his own private field, in the country, remote from any town; that it was not in a public of Mr. King's place; that no crowd or assemblage was there; that the people had no right or occasion to meet or assemble there; and that the persons who claimed to be disturbed were disturbed or excited only because of their religious views." See the testimony in the case, ante page 680, especially that of witnesses Oaks and Marshall, pages 687, 688. 1 The so-called witches were not the only persons who were hanged. Quakers were also thus disposed of. Brooks Adams gives a chronological summary of these hangings in his recent work, "The Emancipation of Massachusetts," and on page 139 says: "A last effort was made to rekindle the dying flame in 1675, by fining constables who failed in their duty to break up Quaker meetings, and offering one third of the penalty to the informer. Marmaduke Stevenson, William Robinson, Mary Dyer, and William Leddra were hanged, several were mutilated or branded, two at least are known to have died from starvation and whipping, and it is probable that others were killed whose fate cannot be traced. The number tortured under the Vagabond Act is unknown, nor can any estimate be made of the misery inflicted upon children by the ruin and exile of parents." Speaking of the spirit which has always characterized prosecutions of offenders against the cherished institutions or beliefs of the dominant sect, Mr. Adams says: "Howsoever bitterly Catholic and Protestant divines have hated and persecuted each other, they have united like true brethren in their hatred and their persecution of heretics; for such was their inexorable destiny." 2 See ante page 220, et seq. Hanging of Quakers. Spirit which characterizes ecutions. religious pros Limitation of rights. "A poor rule that don't work both ways." Showing religious preference. A perversion of the term "' nuisance." Amount it costs to violate the teachings of the dominant cult. Hardship caused by Sunday laws. Opposed by laboring men. Resolution of a labor union. tions, he has no right to incommode or interfere with or disturb the re ligious worship of others. It is insisted that this law is in conformity with the religious faith of the majority of the Christian people, and that working upon Sunday is repulsive to them, and repugnant to their ideas of propriety and morality. Granted. That is a matter between them and their God. Is it not equally as offensive and repulsive to the plaintiff in error, to see the constant, open, and habitual violation and desecration of a day he holds to be holy and sacred? Is he not entitled to the same consideration and protection as the majority, or those who keep and observe Sunday? are you not giving preference to a "mode of worship" when you hold that he shall rest and observe Sunday because it is the holy day of the majority, and that the day he holds in reverence can be violated with impunity? What is this but giving a preference to a religious establishment and mode of worship, and a denial of the natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience, whether it is done by legislative enactment or judicial construction? Well was it said by the able and distinguished late chief justice of this court, that "to hold that barbering on Sunday was a nuisance, is a perversion of the term 'nuisance.'"' A fortiori can his ruling be applied to plowing on Sunday, by a quiet, orderly citizen, in his own field, in a secluded part of the country, and in the discharge of what he conscientiously believes to be his duty to his God and his family. . . A fine of seventy-five dollars is imposed, to appease the demands for vengeance. Seventy-five dollars and costs are demanded of Mr. King, as due punishment for an act of which the law of the State for nearly one hundred years had declared the penalty to be ample when fixed at three dollars! 1 1 As severe as these Sunday laws are found to operate on the laboring man, many of the petitions and arguments for Sunday legislation present the plea that the "poor, overworked laboring man" suffers where we do not have the Sunday law to protect his interests. But the absurdity of such pleas are manifest; for laboring men are the very men who are made to suffer by these Sunday laws, Messrs. King and Parker of Tennessee, and their brethren, for example. Sunday laws are intended to enforce regard for the day the majority consider as sacred, not to protect the laboring man. "The 'American' Sabbath must be protected!" is their watchword; and they are resolved to protect Sunday by law, too-whether the laboring man, or any other man, is benefited or oppressed. The laboring classes do not, as a whole, wish all means of enjoyment and recreation prohibited on Sunday; they do not wish libraries, museums, and art galleries closed, nor excursion trains, picnics, and driving stopped. On the contrary, they frequently plead the need of the benefits of these various means of physical rest and mental culture which they say they can obtain only on the first day of the week. They even raise their voices against these oppressive ecclesiastical laws. This fact is reluctantly admitted by Rev. W. F. Crafts in his book appealing for Sunday laws. He says: "Blind to these great facts [the blessings of strict Sunday observance], a shoelasters' union in Brooklyn, at the publication of the new Penal Code of New York in 1882, adopted a paper which thus describes the Sabbath laws: We learn with regret that the churches are joining hands with tyranny and capital for the purpose of suppressing liberty and oppressing the laborer'-sentiments representative of many labor organizations, which show that holiday Sundays prevent those who follow them from |