been regarded as efficient protectors of public morals aud of social happiness."

"In Georgia," says Mr. Ringgold, "the court sustained the [Sunday] law, holding that the power to make it was collected from the general powers delegated to maintain good order, etc.; which evidently confines the reasoning to a question of police. But it [the court] proceeded to add: The power is a very high prerogative, and is supported by the principle involved in the preservation of the morals and duties of the citizens upon the Lord's day.'"

In New York, Sunday contracts are enforceable, although the making of them is "immoral; " but in Alabama, in the case of Rainey v. Cuffs (22 Ala. 288), a Sunday contract was declared "void for immorality," and the object of the law was declared to be "to prevent vice and immorality." In Ohio, Swisher v. Williams (Wright 754, 1834), where a deed was executed on Sunday, the court declared that "both parties partook of the sin of violating the Sabbath." There being, therefore, "innocent party," the transaction had to stand, so that neither party to the "sin" might unduly profit thereby. In this case, therefore, justice was done, even though the path by which it was reached was devious.

no

In commenting upon these and other cases, Mr. Ringgold says: "To appreciate the true significance of these citations, it must be borne in mind that the 'immorality,'' vice,' and 'sin' consist not in the acts done, but in the doing of them on Sunday." In other words, things not only harmless, but even useful and therefore praiseworthy if done on any other day, become immoral if done on Sunday! Is it any wonder that writing at a time when this view of such matters was practically universal, Blackstone gives profanation of the Lord's day" as "the ninth offense against God and religion "

66

Other cases might be cited, but the conclusion is already unavoidable that, as Mr. Ringgold tersely puts it, "Sunday idleness is enforced as a religious duty in the individual." Mr. Ringgold's reasoning by which this conclusion is reached is briefly as follows:

"As work on Sunday is a desecration,' and only that which is sacred can be deseerated, and as the ascription of this quality of sacredness whether to a time or a

place, is altogether a matter of religious belief, it follows that, if the sacredness of Sunday is, as we are told by some judges, created [or declared] by the legislature, then, as already observed, the legislature has exercised ecclesiastical functions in the passage of Sunday laws; but it is no less true that, if these laws are simply a recognition of a sanctity already bestowed on the day by some other authority, the legislature has, in their passage, applied the civil authority to the enforcement of a religious dogma, and to that extent identified the state with the church."

That the writer we quote is right in his conclusion, is clearly shown by the fact that the English authorities are clear and decided upon this point. Referring to Sunday laws, Lord Chief Justice Coke of England is quoted thus: "It has been truly said, 'Regis, qui serviunt Christo' [Those who serve Christ (are) of the king; that is by implication, those who serve not Christ are not loyal to the king.]' (2 Inst. 264.) And again: "Sabbath dies non dies juridicus,' [The Sabbath day is not a legal day.] for that ought to be consecrated to divine service."

But notwithstanding the facts of the nature and origin of the Sunday institution, that it is as an institution religious and only religious, that it belongs to the church and not to the state, and that, according to the eminent authorities quoted, it is enforced as a "sacred" and not as a civil day, we find Sunday laws sustained in many States upon so-called "civil " grounds, as "police regulations," as creating "a holiday" rather than "a holy day," etc. This is a phase of Sunday legislation that is becoming more and more common wherever it is necessary for any reason to meet the objection that Sunday laws are not in harmony with the American principle of the total separation of church and state. This, then, is today the most prominent feature in the legal aspect of the first day of the week in this country.

Ο

greatest

evils of our times is the growing demand for religious legislation.

This demand on the part of religious organizations is be

coming more and more insistent, and in some instances the civil authorities are yielding to it. The foundation pillars of civil and religious liberty are being thus assailed by their most relentless foes.

Religious organizations that are clamoring for governmental recognition of their peculiar dogmas, are setting their sails to catch every wind that blows. But they are working in the dark, under cover, camouflaging their real motives. They are adopting the U-boat method in attacking the Ship of State. The accompanying cartoon is therefore not overdrawn.

We hear much of such organizations as the National Reform Association, the Christian Citizenship League, the Christian Elector's A880ciation, the International Reform Bureau, the American Sabbath Union, the Lord's Day Alliance, the Sunday Rest League, the Federated Churches, the Christian Party, the Federal Council of Churches, the Civic Righteousness Alliance, the American Sabbath League, the Federation of Catholic Societies, and the like, all of them formidable organizations, and all having one object that of establishing and enforcing religion by law.

The most lamentable feature, as well as the most surprising one, is the fact that most of these organizations are professedly Protestant.

It is a sad commentary on our estimate of the value of freedom that Protestant organizations in the main are drifting away from their original moorings and from the foundation pillars of faith, and are joining hands with that system which, during the Dark Ages, claimed the right, and still claims the right, to use the civil power for religious ends, and whose history is stained with the blood of many martyrs. Civil liberty and religious liberty stand or fall together. No nation can long maintain

one

the

without other. They are the two complements which make the proposition complete. While we are striving to make the world safe for political democracy, we must not forget to save the world from religious autocracy. A religious tyranny of the majority, confederated for the purpose of controlling political institutions and oppressing the minority, is not a whit better than a religious autocracy of a few which menaces the rights of the majority.

Alliances of religion and politics are wrong in principle, and always dangerous to the cause of civil and religious liberty. The results of such a combination can only be religious and civil despotism. A union of religion with the civil government is incompatible with the teachings of the New Testament. The medieval custom of uniting the church and the state in 80-called Christian nations, is not an outgrowth of true Christian principles, but is a practice borrowed from pagan nations, whose prevailing religions were always fostered by, or perhaps we would better say, identified with the civil governments.

The present tendency toward attempting to make people righteous and religious through the establishment of religious dogmas by civil authority is a danger signal, at which we should take alarm. Sunday laws and universal compulsory Sunday observance, are an entering wedge, opening the gates for a flood of religious legislation to follow in its wake. It is high time that a strong voice of protest be raised against ecclesiastical encroachments upon our free institutions, and the conscience of the individual. A complete divorcement of the church from the state is in harmony with Christ's teachings, and is the only sure basis of domestic peace and religious freedom. Let us keep the church and state eternally sepa rate, that truth, justice, and liberty may prevail, and that tranquillity and happiness may be promoted and more firmly established.

S

OME months ago the city of Los Angeles passed a typical Sunday law. This was enacted at the instigation of the bakers' union and other unions or parts of unions. The subject was not very much agitated previous to this, but when the people of the city woke up to the fact that their council had passed what they termed a "blue law," there was a great deal of indignation manifested. Many protests were sent to the city council. Delegations opposing the law came before the council a number of times and presented their arguments against the unjust measure.

On the other hand, the proponents of the law were active in their efforts. The leading ministers of the city appealed to the council not to listen to the petition, but to enforce the law. Those who agitated, threatened the council with the recall. It was argued by some that it was the wording of the bill which had stirred up the enmity, and that the people of Los Angeles were not opposed to Sunday legislation.

The original law was consequently repealed and a new one enacted. This found no better favor than the original. As the November election drew on, it was decided by the council to leave the matter to the voters of the city. A sample Sunday law was enacted by the council to be voted on. The great dailies of the city of Los Angeles were nearly all opposed to the proposed measure.

About this time the epidemic of influenza came to the city, and prevented a heavy vote on election day.

The final returns showed that 26,390 people voted for the Sunday law and 50,586 against it. The measure was thus lost by a majority of 24,196. Thus Los Angeles retains its place in the ranks of liberty lovers.

This is no new experience for the

The American people are not ready to give over into the hands of others their privilege of working. Those who desire to do so can close their places on Sunday, and should be protected in that right. If the barbers and grocers of Los Angeles are really desirous of closing their shops, they certainly have the privilege of doing so. No one would force them to keep open. They have now a good opportunity to show their real loyalty to the cause which was so decisively defeated. It remains to be seen whether they have the courage of the conviction.

Sunday legislation is always inconsistent. It is not in the interest of the workingmen. Even this latest of proposed Sunday laws is no exception to the above statement. While it closed grocery stores and bakeshops, it left restaurants, lunch stands, fruit stands, places for the sale of ice cream, theaters, and many other places open. It was altogether arbitrary in its requirements, and opposed to the basic principles of true Americanism.

May the good people of California always jealously guard their own rights and those of their fellow men.

WE are Christians and believe not only in Christian morals, but in active, aggressive Christianity. We do not believe, however, in enforcing Christianity by civil law. The institutions of Christianity are for Christians only. Christian baptism, Christian Communion, Christian belief, the weekly Christian rest, etc., are all good and helpful, but they are good only for Christians. What value could there possibly be in enforced baptism, or in a statute-imposed celebration of the Lord's Supper? or in a state-compelled profession of Christianity?-None whatever. Nor is there any more benefit derived from a state-imposed, statute-enforced weekly rest day.

city, nor, in fact, is it such for the whole State of California. In 1914 the people of California rejected a similar Sunday measure by a majority of 167,211. At that time the city of Los Angeles gave a majority of 28,405 against the State measure. It is a pleasure to know that in nearly every instance where such measures have been voted upon by the people, Sunday legislation has lost.

The Lord invites willing service. He accepts no other. The state is not warranted in using its powers to compel any form or any measure of devotion to the divine Being. Church and state must be kept separate if our liberties are to be preserved.

T is a principle of law that that which cannot be legitimately done directly cannot be rightfully done indirectly. But this just principle is flagrantly violated in Sunday laws, as we shall show.

It is very generally admitted, even by the defenders of Sunday legislation, that our American States have no right to require Sunday rest on religious grounds, but they insist that the state can rightfully require the same thing on civil grounds. This is to say, that if the state compels an individual to stop work on Sunday because of the religious character of the day, that would be doing him a wrong; but if it requires him to desist from Sunday work because rest one day in seven is a physical necessity, or something of that kind, there is no wrong done him.

Now, preceisely the same thing is required of the individual in either case; precisely the same effect is felt by the individual. Yet we are asked to believe that in the one case he would be suffering a wrong, while in the other case there would be no wrong whatever done him. Whether he suffered an injustice or not would not be a question of the nature of the act or its result upon him, but only of the

A CONFESSION

RELIGIO

In the case of murder, theft, or other crime, the act is wrong in itself, and is prohibited for that reason. By its prohibition no injustice can be done to any one. In the other casewhere labor on Sunday is prohibited-it is admitted that injustice is done the person who is thus restrained, if the reason for the prohibition be a religious one; and this is an acknowledgment that labor is all right in its character and may be for the benefit of the person performing it, which could not be true of anything wrong in itself. This is to say in effect that the individual suffers a hardship in being compelled to lose one seventh of his time if the compulsion be imposed on religious

grounds, yet the very same hardship is no injustice at all if the reason for it is alleged upon civil grounds! Injustice becomes justice simply by alleging a civil reason for it in the place of a religious one! If this be true, then verily, there is something in a name, after all. But it is not true. The end does not justify the means. The means itself must be right.

We submit, however, that if it is wrong to interfere with personal freedom on Sunday on religious grounds, if such interference would in any case be an invasion of one's rights,it must be an invasion of rights and an injustice no matter how many changes may be rung on the name under which the action is sought to be justified. The act of compelling a man to stop his work and remain idle on Sunday could not be an invasion of his rights under one name, if it were not an invasion under every name; since the prohibition itself, and its effects upon him, remain precisely the same in every case.

The admission that it would be unjust to prohibit work on Sunday, save for the alleged civil necessity for such restraint, is fatal to the attempt to justify Sunday laws. It is a confession of their injustice.