one day, and the law also forces them to rest on another, they will thus be forced to violate the first provision of the commandment they are conscientiously attempting to keep.

In Business in Hitchcock, Okla.

"The plaintiffs in error in this case were prosecuted and convicted in the county court of Blaine County for violating our Sabbath, or Sunday, laws.

"It appears from the record that they were conducting a general mercantile business at Hitchcock, Okla., and exposed their merchandise for sale on Sunday; that this was done in an orderly, peaceable, and quiet way. And there is no complaint that it was done in such manner as to interrupt or disturb other persons in observing Sunday, or the first day of the week, as 'holy time.'

"It also appears that plaintiffs in error are and were Seventh-day Adventists, and uniformly and religiously observed Saturday, or the seventh day of the week, as a day of rest and 'holy time.'

After designating the first day of the week as the Sabbath, and declaring that Sabbath-breaking shall consist, first, of 'servile labor,' except works of necessity or charity;' and second, in 'trades, manufac tures, and mechanical employments,' the legislature then makes an exception, and in Sec. 2406 provides that: 'It is a sufficient defense in proceedings for servile labor on the first day of the week, to show that the accused uniformly keeps another day of the week as holy time, and does not labor upon that day, and that the labor complained of was done in such manner as not to interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of the week as holy time.'

"Now the question is, What did the legislature contemplate by the term 'servile labor' in this exception?

"It is loosely stated by some courts that the term 'servile labor is infelicitous. But there is no such thing as servile labor' in this country, and has not been for years; and the term is not only 'infelicitous,' but is obsolete and meaningless, as applied to present conditions. And if our statute should be limited to the literal meaning of the term, then neither the prohibition nor the exception in the statute, could apply to any class of labor existing today, either in this State or the nation. The word 'servile' pertains to slaves — to those held in subjection and enslaved; and no such thing as that exists today in our nation. But our legislature certainly had in mind some existing character or class of labor, to which they intended that both the prohibition

74

Freedom, Civil and Religious

and the exception should apply, and we think must have intended to use the word 'servile' as synonymous with 'secular.' It would be highly improper to strike down a statute so vital as this, as meaningless, unless it should be impossible by any reasonable construction, to ascertain the legislative intent. This law, as stated by an eminent jurist, 'proceeds upon the theory, entertained by most of those who have investigated the subject, that the physical, intellectual, and moral welfare of mankind requires a periodical day of rest from labor, and, as some particular day must be fixed, the one most naturally selected is that which is regarded as sacred by the greatest number of citizens, and which by custom is generally devoted to religious worship, or rest and recreation, as this causes the least interference with business or existing customs.' "But our legislature, we think wisely and properly, by the provisions of Sec. 2406, Revised Laws, 1910, exempted any one who uniformly keeps another day of the week as holy time, and does not labor upon that day,' from the penalties of this statute; provided, such person who uniformly and religiously keeps another day as holy time, works on the first day in such manner as not to interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of the week as holy time.' The writer of this opinion conscientiously and religiously believes that Sunday, or the first day of the week, is the day upon which all persons should rest, and is the day that should be observed as holy time by all Christians, in commemoration of the greatest fact in our religion,- the resurrection of our Lord.

Would Not Be Conscience for Another

"But I cannot, and would not if I could, make my conscience the standard for my brother. We are all fallible, and I would not assume the responsibility of forcing him to adopt my faith; for should I be wrong, my responsibility would then be doubled. And the legislature intended to refrain from interfering with or coercing the conscience of those who uniformly and conscientiously keep another day than the first day of the week as holy time, by the provisions of Sec. 2406. We think this is in harmony with the spirit and genius of our Government. And when our legislators exempted persons who uniformly, conscientiously, and religiously keep another day, from the penalties of the statute, they intended to give them a substance and not a shadow. Hence we think the legislature intended to use the word 'servile' as synonymous with 'secular.' And in this we are sustained by Gladwin v. Lewis, 6 Conn. 49, 16 Amer. Dec. 33. But even without a precedent, we think, no other construction could give vitality to the real legislative intent.

"But it is facetiously argued by some courts, that to say to these people they shall keep our Sunday, does not prevent them from also keeping the day they regard as 'holy day.' But these courts overlook the fact that under the divine commandment these people are striving to obey, it is just as imperative that they work six days as it is that they rest on the seventh. And if their conscience compels them to rest one day, and the law forces them also to rest on another, they would thus be forced to violate the first provision of the commandment they are attempting conscientiously to keep.

"For these reasons and others that might be added, we think the judgment should be reversed.

"The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the case.

"Doyle, P. J., and Armstrong, J., concur."

CHARLES II, OF ENGLAND The Sunday law enacted by Charles II in the twenty-ninth year of his reign

has served as a model for many Sunday statutes in America.

Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works.- Jesus Christ. Rev. 2:4, 5.

Human nature is such that whenever theological creeds are incorporated with political constitutions, and church and state united, it results in evil, and I point to the whole history of England and the Continental nations as examples illustrating this fact.- Rev. A. S. Leonard.

LEGISLATION

In defense of Sunday laws the claim is frequently urged that Sunday is a civil institution, that the civil observance of the day is all that is sought, and that legislation making the observance of the day compulsory is civil and not religious.

If this claim is true, it is within the purview of legislative bodies to enact Sunday laws, for the sphere of the state is to deal with civil questions; but if Sunday is a religious institution, such legislation is religious, and therefore not within the rightful province of civil government, for not only does the First Amendment to our national Constitution provide that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," but nearly all our State constitutions contain similar prohibitions.

The Famous Sunday Mail Report

The United States Congress, in 1829 and 1830, regarded Sunday legislation as religious. Between the years 1810 and 1829, Congress was asked to stop Sunday mails. During these years numerous petitions and remonstrances were presented. Finally, in 1829, the Senate Committee on the Post-offices and Post-roads gave consideration to the question and decided adversely to the petitioners. The committee assigned as a reason that to pass a Sunday law would be to decide a religious controversy, a question appropriate to ecclesiastical councils, but not to civil legislative assemblies. This report says:

Congress Cannot Legislate for God

Should Congress in legislative capacity adopt the sentiment [of the petitioners], it would establish the principle that the legislature is a proper tribunal to determine what are the laws of God. It would involve a legislative decision on a religious controversy, and on a point in which good citizens may honestly differ in opinion, without disturbing the peace of society or endangering its liberties. If this principle is once introduced, it will be impossible to define its bounds.

"Let the national legislature once perform an act which involves the decision of a religious controversy, and it will have passed its legitimate bounds. The precedent will then be established, and the foundation laid, for that usurpation of the divine prerogative in this country which has been the desolating scourge to the fairest portions of the Old World."" American State Papers," Class VII, pp. 225 et seq.