Mr. Jones. -- Not yet. They are now after the first law. This will lead to that. The law of Constantine was enacted in 321, and it commanded at first only that towns-people and mechanics should do no work, that they might be religious. They did not ask for too much at first. As was said in a ministers' meeting in San Diego, Cal., about two months ago, "In this thing you must not ask for too much at first. Ask just what public sentiment will bear, and when you get that, ask for more." And as was said upon this bill by Dr. Crafts in this Capitol, --
"We will take a quarter of a loaf, half a loaf, or a whole loaf. If the Government should do nothing more than forbid the opening of the post-offices at church hours, it would be a national tribute to the value of religion, and would lead to something more satisfactory."
Then in telling what would be more satisfactory, he said: --
"The law allows the local postmaster, if he chooses (and some of them do choose), to open the mails at the very hour of church, and so make the post-office the competitor of the churches."
At another point in the same speech, Mr. Crafts referred to the proposed law as one for "protecting the church services from post-office competition." And in explaining how this could be done, he said: --
"A law forbidding the opening between ten and twelve, would accomplish this, and would be better than nothing; but we want more."
And, --
"A law forbidding any handling of Sunday mail at such hours as would interfere with church attendance on the part of the employees, would be better than nothing; but we want more than this."
He continues: --
"Local option in deciding whether a local post-office shall be opened at all on Sunday, we should welcome as better than nothing;. . . . but we desire more than this."
How much more? Still he continues: --
"A law forbidding all carrier delivery of mail on Sunday, would be better than nothing; but we want more than that."
And when will they ever get enough? It is precisely as it was when the Emperor Constantine forbade the judges, towns-people, and mechanics to work on Sunday. That was an imperial tribute to the "value of religion," and led to "something more satisfactory" -- to the church managers.
Senator Blair. -- Have you ever heard of a proposition's being made in any legislative body to compel any one to attend church on Sunday?
Mr. Jones. -- The propositions that are made are for that very purpose, to stop the Sunday trains, the Sunday newspapers, -- in short, to stop all work on Sunday, so that the people can go to church.
Senator Blair. -- But these people come here and say that they have no such purpose, and they have been doing these things in the States for a hundred years, and during the Colonial period anterior to that time. Have you ever heard on the American continent, within the territory of what is now the United States, a proposition or a suggestion in a legislative body to compel anybody to attend church?
Mr. Jones. -- Not in legislative body, but in ecclesiastical bodies.
Senator Blair. -- Ecclesiastical bodies do not make the laws. Congress is not an ecclesiastical body.
Mr. Jones. -- But it is an ecclesiastical body that is seeking to secure and enforce this law, just as the New England theocracy did when "absence from `the ministry of the word' was punished by a fine;" and then when people were compelled under such penalty to go to church and listen to the preaching, it was such preaching as, said one of the victims, "was meat to be digested, but only by the heart or stomacke of an ostrich."
Nor was this confined to Colonial times or to New England; for after the Colonies became States, North Carolina had a Sunday law, -- has yet, for aught I know, -- reading as follows: --
"Be it enacted. . . that all and every person or persons shall on the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday, carefully apply themselves to the duties of religion and piety."
In 1803, Tennessee passed a law embodying the same words. But South Carolina and Georgia went farther than this; South Carolina enacted that --
"All and every person whatsoever, shall, on every Lord's day, apply themselves to the observation of the same, by exercising themselves thereon in the duties of piety and true religion, publicly and privately; and having no reasonable or lawful excuse, on every Lord's day shall resort to their parish church, or some other parish church, or some meeting or assembly of religious worship."
In 1803, Georgia likewise enacted a Sunday law whose first section required all persons to attend public worship. In 1821, the State of Connecticut, in revising its laws, made its Sunday law read in the first section, that --
"It shall be the duty of the citizens of this State to attend the public worship of God on the Lord's day."
This is precisely the line of things proposed by these men and women now working for this Sunday law. This is the first step in that direction. The whole object which they have in view in stopping work on Sunday, is identical with that of the fourth century; namely, in order that the people may be devoted, in order that they may go to church. The very intention of these men in securing the law is religious.
I will refer you to some of the statements of the very men who stood in this room this forenoon, arguing for this Sunday bill. Dr. W. W. Everts, of Chicago, in a Sunday-law convention in Illinois, Nov. 8, 1887, declared Sunday to be the "test of all religion." Taking his own words, what can the enforcement of it ever be but the enforcement of a religious test? Dr. Crafts, who is so prominent in this work, said to the Knights of Labor at Indianapolis, as I have before quoted, and he repeated it in this city last night, "If you take religion out of the day, you take the rest out of it." This statement was made in reply to a question as to whether a day of rest could not be secured to the working-men without reference to religion. Taking the statement of Dr. Crafts, therefore, its being a day of rest to anybody depends altogether upon whether religion is in it; for if you take religion out, you take the rest out. He, with these others, demands a law compelling the people to take the rest. Religion being in the rest, and the rest wholly dependent upon the fact that religion is in it, it is inevitable that their effort to secure a law compelling everybody to rest on Sunday is an effort to establish by law a religious observance.
Again: in the Boston Monday lectureship of 1887, Joseph Cook said, --
"The experience of centuries shows that you will in vain endeavor to preserve Sunday as a day of rest, unless you preserve it as a day of worship."
Further: Dr. Everts said in the Elgin convention: --
"The laboring class are apt to rise late on Sunday morning, read the Sunday papers, and allow the hour of worship to go by unheeded."
And in Chicago only three weeks ago, Dr. Herrick Johnson named the matter with which he said the Sunday papers are filled -- crime, scandal, gossip, news, and politics -- and exclaimed: --
"What a melange! what a dish to set down before a man before breakfast and after breakfast, to prepare him for hearing the word of God! It makes it twice as hard to reach those who go to the sanctuary, and it keeps many away from the house of worship altogether."
Dr. Everts said further in the Elgin convention: --
"The Sunday train is another great evil. They cannot afford to run a train unless they get a great many passengers, and so break up a great many congregations. The Sunday railroad trains are hurrying their passengers fast on to perdition. What an outrage that the railroad, that great civilizer, should destroy the Christian Sabbath!"
I will give one more statement which sums up the whole matter. In a Sunday-law mass-meeting held in Hamilton Hall, Oakland, Cal., in January, 1887, Rev. Dr. Briggs, of Napa, Cal., said to the State: --
"You relegate moral instruction to the church, and then let all go as they please on Sunday, so that we cannot get at them."
Therefore they want the State to corral all the people on Sunday, so that the preachers can get at them.
These statements might be multiplied indefinitely; but these are enough. The speeches, and the sermons, and the work, of those who are in favor of the Sunday laws, are all in the same line. They all plainly show that the secret and real object of the whole Sunday-law movement is to get the people to go to church. The Sunday train must be stopped, because church members ride on it, and don't go to church enough. The Sunday paper must be abolished, because the people read it instead of going to church, and because those who read it and go to church too, are not so well prepared to receive the preaching.