All this, sir, is involved in the question as to whether that man shall recognize the law to such an extent as even to pay the fine. If he does, then it follows inevitably that all his property shall go to pay fines, or else he must choose between yielding his rights of conscience, and allowing one-sixth of his time to be confiscated, and in that a certain proportion of property; because to the industrious citizen, time is property. But if the State by a Sunday law or by any other means, may confiscate a part, it may confiscate all. Where, then, shall resistance to oppression begin? -- I say, At the very first appearance of it. Under cover of the word "Loan" Charles I. undertook to confiscate a small sum of money from each of the property owners of England. John Hampden's share was about seven dollars and seventy-five cents. He was a rich man, but he refused to pay it; and his refusal to pay that paltry sum led to all England's being plunged into confusion and civil war: the king lost his head, Hampden himself lost his life, and all this rather than to pay the insignificant sum of seven dollars and seventy-five cents! -- less than one-third of the fine imposed upon this man for refusing to assent to the confiscation of one-sixth of his property. But John Hampden's refusal to pay that money established the Constitutional principle that every man has the inalienable right to acquire, possess, and protect property -- a right which was invaded in this case. Upon this principle alone that man was entirely justified in refusing to pay the fine imposed by that Sunday law. But as there was also involved the inalienable right of conscience, he was doubly justified in refusing to obey the law or to recognize the principle.
Senator Blair -- Suppose he was a guilty man. Suppose he did not believe it was an offense to steal, and that he conscientiously thought that he could take goods from another in a certain way. He had been convicted under the law, and was under the penalty of paying twenty-five dollars' fine. Is he to put his right of conscience against the demands of wife and child, and against the judgment of the community, and the State in which he lives, and to which he owes all the rights to the enjoyment of property, and everything else he has? In this case a man saw all this evil done rather than pay twenty-five or fifty dollars, and he says he did that by reason of his conscience.
Mr. Jones -- The cases are not parallel at all, unless indeed you count it as much of a crime for a man to follow his honest occupation as it is for him to steal. This, however, we have demonstrated is the very thing that Sunday laws do. But we forever protest against honesty industry's being put upon a level with thieving.
The man who steals takes the property of others without compensation and without regard to the question of right. If, then, the State takes from him property or time without compensation, he cannot complain of injustice. But in the case of the man who works on Sunday, he invades no man's right in any degree; he takes no man's property or his time in any way, much less does he take it without compensation. For the State to punish the thief, is just. For the State to punish the industrious citizen, is pre-eminently unjust.
But aside from all this, did you ever hear of a man whose conscience taught him that it was right to steal, that it was a conscientious conviction to steal?
Senator Blair -- I have heard of great many instances where an individual confessed that he had conscientiously violated the law, yet he was punished.
Mr. Jones -- Precisely; and the Christians were put to death under the Roman empire for violating the law.
Senator Blair -- But that does not answer my question, and it is not necessary that it should be answered.
Mr. Jones -- It is right for any man to violate any law that invades his Constitutional rights; and it is his right conscientiously to violate any law that invades the rights of conscience. God declares the man innocent who violates the law that interferes with man's relationship to God -- the law that invades the rights of conscience. See cases "The King vs. Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego;" and "The State vs. Daniel," reported in Daniel, chapters 3 and 6.
The end of the Arkansas case, as reported by Senator Crockett, was that the poor man lost both his wife and his child.
Senator Blair -- What became of him?
Mr. Jones -- He left the State.
Senator Blair -- I should think he ought to leave it.
Mr. Jones -- So do I, sir. But what can be said of freedom any more in this country, when such things can be? That is also true of six other men who followed the dictates of their own consciences, -- as good, honest, virtuous citizens, as lived in Arkansas.
Senator Blair -- There is a good deal of humbug about the dictates of one's own conscience. If a man is to set up his conscience against the obligations to do what is right and to perform his duty toward society, an unintelligent and uninformed conscience of that kind might be allowed to destroy all society. It is not conscience always.
Mr. Jones -- I beg your pardon, sir. The rights of conscience are eternally sacred. There is no conscience in regard to the State, however; conscience has to do with God, and with what he has commanded; and a man reads in the Bible what God commands. I here adopt the words of the present Associate-justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Hon. Stanley Matthews, in his speech in the case of the Cincinnati School Board vs. Minor et al. He says: --
"We may call the eccentricities of conscience, vagaries, if we please; but in matters of religious concern we have no right to disregard or despise them, no matter how trivial and absurd we may conceive them to be. In the days of the early Christian martyrs, the Roman lictors and soldiers despised and ridiculed the fanaticism that refused the trifling conformity of a pinch of incense upon the altar, erected to the Caesar that arrogated to himself the title and honor of `divine,' or a heathen statue. History is filled with the record of bloody sacrifices which holy men who feared God rather than men, have not withheld, on account of what seemed to cruel persecutors but trifling observances and concessions. . . . Conscience, if your honors please, is a tender thing, and tenderly to be regarded; and in the same proportion in which a man treasures his own moral integrity, -- sets up the light of conscience within him as the glory of God shining in him to discover to him the truth, -- so ought he to regard the conscience of every other man, and apply the cardinal maxim of Christian life and practice, `Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so unto them.'"
Senator Blair -- Should those who conscientiously believe in free love be allowed to indulge in it?
Mr. Jones -- There is no point in that. Where is there any conscientious conviction in free love? I cannot discover it. There is no room for any.
Senator Blair -- But there must be laws which prohibit immorality?
Mr. Jones -- I ask you to define what immorality is, and then I will answer your question.
Senator Blair -- If you do not know what the expression means, I shall not undertake to enlighten you.
Mr. Jones -- I know what it means.
Senator Blair -- Then why do you ask me to define it? Why do you not answer the question?
Mr. Jones -- Because there are modified meanings of the word which make it refer to crime. Immorality is itself a violation of the law of God, and civil government has no right to punish any man for a violation of the law of God as such. I do say, therefore, that that which, properly speaking, is immorality, the civil law cannot prohibit, and that it has no right to attempt it. Morality is defined as follows: --
"Morality: The relation of conformity or non-conformity to the true moral standard or rule. . . . The conformity of an act to the divine law."
As morality is the conformity of an act to the divine law, it is plain that morality pertains solely to God, and with that, civil government can have nothing to do.
Again: Moral law is defined as --
"The will of God, as the supreme moral ruler, concerning the character and conduct of all responsible beings; the rule of action as obligatory on the conscience or moral nature." The moral law is summarily contained in the decalogue, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai."
These definitions are evidently according to Scripture. The Scriptures show that the ten commandments are the law of God; that they express the will of God; that they pertain to the conscience, and take cognizance of the thoughts and intents of the heart; and that obedience to these commandments is the duty that man owes to God. Says the Scripture, --
"Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man." Eccl. 12:13.