guage of Judge Caldwell, in case of Swan vs. Swan, 21 Fed. Rep., page 305: "It would be downright hypocrisy for a court to affect to believe that the moral sense of a community would be shocked by compelling a man to pay a note given for an honest debt because it was executed on the Lord's Day." And the same is true of the enforcement of any contract.

Among the authorities elsewhere which hold in accordance with our decisions that a note or contract made on Sunday is valid, are Barrett vs. Aplington, Fed. Cases, No. 1045; More vs. Clymer, 12 Mo. App., II; Glover vs. Cheatham, 19 Mo. App., 656; Sanders vs. Johnson, 29 Ga., 526; Dorough vs. Mort Co. (Ga.), 45 S. E. Rep., 29 (1903); Ray vs. Cattel, 51 Ky., 532; Hazzard vs. Day, 14 Allen (Mass.), 487, 92 Am. Dec., 790; Geer vs. Putnam, 10 Mass., 312; Kaufman vs. Hamm, 30 Mo., 388 (which held valid a promissory note made on Sunday); Foster vs. Wooten, 67 Miss., 540; Horacek vs. Keebler, 5 Nebr., 355; Fitzgerald vs. Andrews, 15 Nebr., 52; Switcher vs. Williams, Wright (Ohio), 754; Bloom vs. Richards, 2 Ohio St., 387; Hellems vs. Abercrombie, 15 S. C., 110, 40 Am. Rep., 684 (which holds a mortgage executed on Sunday to be

valid); Milk vs. Williams, 16 S. C., 593, 40 Am. Rep., 684; Lucas vs. Larkins, 85 Tenn., 355 (privy examination on Sunday valid); Gibbs vs. Brucker, 111 United States, 597: Allen vs. Gardner, 7 R. I., 22; Moore vs. Murdock, 26 Cal., 514; Johnson vs. Brown, 13 Kans., 529; Birke vs. French, 21 Kans., 238; Boynton vs. Page, 13 Wend., 425; Miller vs. Roessler, 4 E. D. Smith, 234; Balsord VS. Every, 44 Barb., 618; Merritt vs. Earle, 29 N. Y., 515; Eberle vs. Mehebach, 55 N. Y., 682; Amis vs. Kyle, 2 Yerk (Tenn.), 31; Behan vs. Ohio, 75 Tex., 87; Schneider vs. Sanson, 62 Tex., 201; Richmond vs. Moore, 107 Ill., 429; Main vs. Johnson, 7 Wash., 321; Raines vs. Watson, 2 W. Va., 371; Clark Contracts, 395; and there are others to same purport. . . .

THE Sunday law of Arkansas provides that "no person who from religious beliefs keeps any other day than the first day of the week as the Sabbath shall be required to observe the first day of the week, usually called the Christian sabbath, and shall not be liable to the penalties enacted against Sabbath breaking; provided, no store or saloon shall be kept open or business carried on there on the Christian sabbath; and provided further, no person so observing any other day shall disturb any religious congregation by his avocations or employments."

Recently in that State one "who from religious beliefs " keeps another day, was arrested while picking peas on Sunday, and was taken before a magistrate for examination. After some questioning, he was reprimanded, and discharged with a caution. He of course urged that he was exempt under the statute, since, as he understood the law, he was not disturbing any individual, much less "any

religious congregation." But the constable who made the arrest said to him, "I will be disturbed as soon as I know you are working on Sunday."

This reminds us of the story of a good woman who complained to some Sunday ball players that they disturbed her by playing on the block adjoining her house. The players then removed to another vacant lot several blocks away. But by going upstairs and using her opera glasses the good woman could still observe the game, and again she complained that she was disturbed. Of course the disturbance was wholly mental. She felt that playing ball on Sunday was wicked, and her moral sense revolted against it.

This lady's state of mind was similar to that of certain of the Puritans in colonial Massachusetts. The king of England ordered that one of the chapels in Boston be opened for worship according to the ritual of the Episcopal Church. This order was bitterly resisted by the

Puritan leaders, who asserted that they would be greatly disturbed by the knowledge that such worship was being conducted in their colony.

A number of people in colonial Virginia were greatly disturbed in exactly the same way by the Baptists. The Baptists held their simple worship, and then when there was occasion repaired to some convenient stream for the purpose of celebrating the rite of baptism. It seems there were seldom wanting "lewd fellows of the baser sort," who by cat calls, the throwing of sticks, stones, etc., disturbed the peace of the community. But instead of arresting the real culprits, the officers would arrest the Baptists and charge them with disturbing the peace.

TAKOMA PARK S. D. A. CHURCH

The charge made by the wolf that the lamb which was downstream from him muddied the water so that he could not drink, was not more absurd than is the claim that ordinary Sunday work is any real disturbance that can be prohibited for any purely civil reason.

This was well illustrated recently by a real experience in Takoma Park, Md. Some street work was being done by the village alongside the Seventh-day Adventist church. For three hours on a Saturday, or from 10 A. M. to about I P. M., nearly two hundred people were worshiping in the church, but nobody so much as thought of being disturbed. There was some noise, it is true, but not enough to interfere with the services, and even those farthest removed from the pulpit and nearest to the street were not

disturbed, and why not? Simply because they gave the matter no thought. They did not feel responsible for what others were doing, and were therefore not annoyed. But suppose the work had been done on Sunday adjoining a church occupied by a first-day congregation; probably the service would have been greatly disturbed, or might even have been discontinued in angry protest against such "wanton desecration," and such "overt interference with the religious liberty of the community.' the community." It makes all the difference in the world whose ox is gored, especially if one of the beasts has been tenderly reared and is not accustomed to being roughly used. But seriously, is there any purely civil reason why anybody should be protected upon any day against merely mental annoyance, such as the knowledge that others in the immediate neighborhood do not believe and practice as they themselves do? If any such reason exists, we should be glad to know of it.

Puts Man in the Place of God

NATIONAL REFORMISM is opposed in principle to the fundamental idea of personal responsibility. Once granted that it is the duty of the government to legislate upon the divine law, and to enforce that law, the conclusion necessarily follows that the individual is responsible not to God, but to the government. Of necessity the question for the individual is not, What says the divine law? but, What says the government about the divine law?

Under the papal theory, the Pope becomes or is the so-called vicegerent of the Son of God, ruling in his stead; under the National Reform theory, the civil government becomes the vicegerent of Divinity, authorized to interpret and enforce the divine law. But no less than the papal theory the National Reform theory puts man in the place of God, and leaves the individual without any certain, infallible moral standard. What, then, would practical National Reform be but an image to the papal beast?

CHIEF JUSTICE RUFFIN of the supreme court of North Carolina ruled that "to keep an open shop on Sunday is not criminal," and that "it was not an indictable offense to sell goods" on that day, because "the deed in itself lacked the essential elements of a criminal act." Courts and legislatures often fail to recognize the science of law, and make acts criminal by arbitrary rulings, when the acts themselves are commendable under purely civil law. The nature of a deed, not the particular day upon which it is done, should determine its quality. Otherwise, the object of the law would be to honor a day instead of preventing the committal of crime.

Chief Justice Ruffin also showed that our Sunday statutes are based on English law. In England there is a union of church and state. American jurists who quote the decisions of English jurists on Sunday laws do our American free institutions a great injustice, because English laws and decisions are not applicable nor of binding obligation here. He also declares that in America "the Christian religion is not a part of the fundamental law of the land," but merely "recognized as an existing and as a prevalent religion."

We recommend the decision and opinions of the supreme court of North Carolina to the consideration of the Blaine County (Oklahoma) Court, in which the Krieger case is pending (referred to in another part of this magazine), as the statute is practically the same in both States. The court record of North Carolina concerning two opinions delivered by Chief Justice Ruffin is as follows:

Opinion Applicable to Oklahoma Case

In State vs. Brooksbank, 28 N. C., 73, Judge Ruffin ruled that "it was not indictable to sell goods in open shop on

Sunday." "It is lawful for the defendant to keep an open shop in Fayetteville, N. C., and sell thereat. . . . The question is whether it is criminal to do so on Sunday."

The indictment is framed upon the precedent in 2 Chitt. Cr. L., 20, which is taken from the "Crown Circuit Companion." Notwithstanding the precedent and what is said by some writers on the law, it may be doubted whether, in the superior courts in England, the profanation of Sunday merely as such would be held to be indictable; and thus, for the reason suggested in State vs. Williams, 4 Ired., 400.

However, if such an indictment be sustainable in England, it must be, as we conceive, and stated in the case referred to, because working and trafficking on Sunday is, according to the doctrine of the established church, a profanation of that day; and as it is thus criminal according to the law of the church. it becomes criminal against the civil government, which established the church. But that reasoning is entirely inapplicable here. With the theological question the court disclaims the intention to concern. We have no right nor purpose, as municipal judges, to decide or discuss it, even if we were competent to handle a point which has been so much controverted among learned and pious men of almost all periods. But our duty is strictly limited to the inquiry whether the law of North Carolina, as the law of the State, and not of a religious establishment, has made the profanation of Sunday by keeping open shop an indictable offense. And upon it we must say, as we said in Williams's case, that it has not, and for the reasons given in that case. We have no established church, with authority to prescribe duties in reference to this or other religious tenets, to which all the citizens are bound to render obedience; and, merely as the violation of a duty of religion, we cannot punish the profanation of Sunday.- December Term, 1845.

In State vs. Williams, 26 North Carolina, 400, Judge Ruffin held that "a profanation of Sunday by performing labor on that day is not an indictable offense."

We do not find it anywhere stated that doing secular work on Sunday is, per se, an

offense at common law. There is, indeed, in the "Crown Circuit Companion" a precedent (which is also adopted in 2 Chitt. Cr. L., 20), as an indictment against a butcher as a common Sabbath breaker and profaner of Sunday, for having, within certain times, kept a common public and open shop in a town on Sunday and sold therein meat to divers per

sons.

But we do not perceive how it can become an offense at law even when the labor is both openly and publicly performed, as in a town, for example, except upon a process of reasoning of this kind: That the Christian religion is a part of the common law, that it forbids work on Sunday, not only as a sin in itself, but as a disturbance to others and as an injury to the State, and therefore that the law prohibits such profanation and punishes it. But we cannot believe that such a principle was established at the common law. In the first place, the extent of the obligation of the Sabbath under the gospel is a point on which the professors and teachers of Christianity have been far from agreeing. . . .

Although it may be true that the Christian religion is part of the common law, it is not so in the sense that an act contrary to the precepts of our Saviour or of Christian morals is necessarily indictable. Those which are merely against God and religion were left to the correction of conscience..

The making of bargains on Sunday was not a crime against the State. For contracts made on that day are binding. It has often been so ruled in this State, and after elaborate argument and time to advise. . . .

be not in its nature a nuisance, as prejudicial to the health or comfort of the public, it does not become so by being performed or carried on one day more than another. If the precedent of the indictment against the butcher at common law can be supported at all, it must be on the ground that in England the Christian religion is established by law, and that, according to its principles, as established, the profanation of Sunday is criminal. . . . It be

YUAN SHI-KAI

We do not perceive that laying the act as a common nuisance can vary the result, if per se the profanation of Sunday be not an offense. If the act of the accused in fact disturbs others in the performing of their duties of piety, that will itself be a specific offense, whether committed on Sunday or any other day. If the particular work or trade

came an offense against the state by being contrary to the religion which the state had established. . . . In this State, however, although recognized as an existing and as a prevalent religion, it is not, and cannot be, established by law in any form, nor as consisting of any particular doctrines, or imposing any special duties of worship, or of worship at particular places and periods. Therefore, however clearly the profanation

of Sunday might be against the Christian religion, it is not, and could not here be made, merely as a breach of religious duty, an offense; and much less can it be held an offense at common law. . . There are many of

fenses against God which are not offenses against the state. . . . No change in the law (North Carolina) is called for. Per curiam. Judgment reversed, and venire de novo.State vs. Williams, 26 N. C., 400.

THAT there is such a thing as civic righteousness may not be successfully denied. The Great Teacher of righteousness gave a command in regard to civic righteousness when he said, "Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's." Therefore when the citizen renders to civil government the things which belong to it, then may it be said of him that he enjoys the record of good citizenship, civic righteousness.

But there is reason to believe that a misapprehension exists on the part of many, particularly among a large number. of religious leaders, in regard to what constitutes civic righteousness, judging from certain movements being made on the part of the religious forces in this country. Beginning soon after the close of the Civil War, these movements have been focused into interchurch unions (limited) and kindred federations.

Civic righteousness with many today has come to mean that the nation's citizenry shall not only "render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's," but that there shall also be rendered unto Cæsar "the things that are God's;" whereas the command of the Saviour explicitly states that we are to render unto Cæsar only that which belongs to Cæsar, and to God the things that are God's. The Saviour's instruction suggests a twofold relationship - one pertaining to God's government, the other pertaining to human government. One is a citizenship involving purely civil matters, and belongs to this world; while the other has to do with a citizenship which may be called heavenly. "My kingdom is not of this world," says Christ. "Our citizenship is in heaven," says the apostle Paul.

In both cases organization is an essential factor. The church is a body com

prising a volunteer citizenry of those who choose to serve the Lord as a result of conviction affecting the heart and inmost thoughts, which, brought to its fullest development, is termed conversion. The one essential element entering into this condition is individual faith.

The state is an organization ordained of God primarily for the government of those who do not choose to serve the Lord. If all mankind had chosen to serve the Governor of the universe, there would have been no need of the state, or civil power. But for the control in civil affairs of even those who do not serve him, " the powers that be are ordained of God," and with the ordaining of these "powers that be" is revealed the limit of their ministry. The realm of civil authority is fixed by the One ordaining

66

the powers that be." By reference to Romans 13, it will be noted that good citizenship, civic righteousness, demands that there shall be rendered to all “ their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due [as in the case of rendering to Cæsar]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." Verse 7.

The same chapter tells us that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil," and in verse 9 the scope of civil authority is shown to be confined to the realm of that relationship affecting one another as neighbors, or, as man to man. It is well to note at this juncture the response of Jesus to the question as to which was the greatest commandment. He said: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Matt. 22: 36-39.