Compelled to Work on Sunday?
By E. Hilliard
THE clergymen of this Nation are continually raising the cry that the laboring classes, government employees, are compelled to work on Sunday. In the Senate hearing on the Sunday-Rest bill, in an article entitled, “The National Mail Service and the Sabbath,” by the Rev. T. P. Stevenson, it is said:— “During the session of Congress in 1828 (on the 12th of May and the 8th of July), the House was not permitted to proceed with business on Sabbath morning by reason of the steady and firm resistance of a large number of members who refused to recognize the propriety of proceeding with their ordinary business on that day. The votes for adjournment were nearly equally divided, and more than once lost by the casting vote of the chair. Members then declared that they would leave the House and not return before Monday morning, unless brought in by force, and very properly contended that no authority existed to compel their attendance on the Lord’s day; and the House on both occasions was compelled to adjourn.” (Italics ours.) It appears from this statement that the House was unable to carry on its business on Sunday, the day they termed the Lord’s day, because of “the steady and firm resistance of a large number of members” to taking part in the proceedings on that day, and the result was that the House was compelled to adjourn until Monday. They further contended that there was no power in existence to compel their attendance on that day. It seems that, by taking their stand for their individual convictions of duty, they maintained their personal liberty. But in the face of all this, Mr. Stevenson goes on to state:— “Now, since those men would not consent to labor a few hours on one or two Sabbaths in a year, with what consistency can they compel many thousands of their constituents to labor every Sabbath in the year?” (Italics ours.) It appears that in 1828 the government had no power to compel their constituents to labor on Sunday. From what source has it derived its power to “compel many thousands of their constituents to labor every Sabbath in the year” of 1889? When, where, and how has the government ever compelled any person to work on Sunday? Perhaps as good an answer as can be given to this question is found in a dialogue between Rev. George Elliott and Senator Call, which took place during the same hearing on the Sunday-Rest bill. Senator Call—“What law is it, either State or National, that requires work against a man’s conscience on Sunday?” Mr. Elliott—“Post-office clerks are required to work on Sunday. At the former hearing I called your attention to the fact that the present laws with regard to the postal service give too much discretion to local postmasters with regard to the requirements, the opening of the office, etc., on the Lord’s day.” Senator Call—“The law requires certain work to be performed on Sunday, but it does not compel any man to do it who is conscientiously opposed to working on that day. You say the State is trifling with the conscience of the church. How does it do so?” Mr. Elliott—“You make it difficult for men to hold office. Of course you do not compel a man to work on Sunday; he can resign his office.” In this, Mr. Elliott is compelled to admit that no man is compelled to work on Sunday. Now if those individuals in the employ of the government would all do as those Congressmen did in 1828, there would be no need of this hue and cry for a Sunday law. The great trouble is, this class of government employees do not care a whit about the sanctity of the day. They have no genuine conscientious scruples against working on Sunday; for if the consciences of these individuals was what those advocates of a Sunday law claim it ought to be, every last one of them would resign his position before he would labor on the day he believed to be the Sabbath. But as their greed for gain overbalances their compunctions of conscience, and outweighs their faith in Him who has said, “But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you,” a law must be made to remove all opportunity to test the conscience and to develop faith. The argument of compulsory Sunday toil virtually says to the worker, “You are all right, for you are compelled to labor. It is the government which compels you to work that is committing the sin, and the only party that is responsible. If it comes to the pinch that you must give up your position or violate your conscience, why, of course, violate your conscience until we can legislate on the question; and, as Mr. Stevenson says, “ultimately determine the action of the government.” He might also have added, “and make it assume what we claim to be its proper functions towards you.” Of course the action of the government would be determined by the enforcement of a Sunday law. But, further on, Mr. Stevenson says:— “It has been estimated that 150,000 persons in the United States are deprived of the whole or a part of every Sabbath, to attend to the carriage and distribution of the mails. All these persons are compelled to choose between the loss of employment and performance of secular labor on the Lord’s day.” He also says the National mail service on the Sabbath (Sunday) is a violation of the law of God. Now when these individuals are brought into a position where they have a choice to violate, as he says, the law of God by working on Sunday, or refuse the demands of the government and lose their positions, they have deliberately decided to violate the law of God. And Mr. Stevenson says they are compelled to! What noble martyrs either of these parties would have made in the Middle Ages in standing for their conviction of conscience! E. HILLIARD.
Duluth, Minn.