p. 19 | Religious Legislation in Panama

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jan 5, 1911

Religious Legislation in Panama

FOR the past two months there has been a hard-fought contest over the passage of a Sunday-closing bill for the republic of Panama. It was a strong measure for the first of its kind for the Isthmian dwellers, proposing to close all factories and stores, and even to prevent washerwomen from washing in the streams. We are glad to report that it was defeated in the supreme court, the judges refusing to sanction it, after the national assembly had passed it over the president’s veto.

IN Before the bill passed the legislature, we published articles against it in both English and Spanish, besides doing personally what we could against its passage. After the bill became a law, and was sent to the supreme court for the sanction of the judges, we sent to the judges, in Spanish, the following protest, which we have abridged in the English:—

TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PANAMA.

HONORABLE GENTLEMEN: As editors of El Centinela de la Verdad, a periodical

which is finding a broad circulation in the republic, and as citizens deeply interested in the welfare of this commonwealth, we beg to present the following protest against the Sunday-closing law, which was, in the month of October, passed by the national assembly, vetoed by President Arosemena, and ultimately passed over the president’s head by the national assembly, and which is now waiting the sanction of the supreme court.

Be it understood that we do not for a moment question the motives of Mr. Patiño in championing the bill, nor of the honorable delegates in passing it; but we desire to call attention to some of the principles underlying the Sunday-closing law.

First: Honorable Judges of the Supreme Court, permit us to call your attention to the fact that it is not the function of civil government to create the rights of men (these are natural); but, according to Article XV of the great national constitution of Panama, to “protect” men in the enjoyment of these God-given rights. It is the natural right of every man to either work or not to work, to rest or not to rest, as he may choose, on any or all days of the week, provided that what he does shall not interfere with the rights of others.

Second: The Sunday-closing bill discriminates between citizens, by securing to one class the privilege of a “weekly rest,” and at the same time denying to the other class the equal right to work. This, honorable sirs, is in violation of Article XVI of the constitution. Even though the law be framed in answer to the solicitation of the 350,000 citizens of the republic, and only one man enter his protest demanding his natural right to labor on every day of the week, the lawmakers are bound by the constitution of the republic to protect the rights of this citizen, according, at the same time, to the 350,000 citizens the same privilege to work or not to work. This is the guaranty of the constitution,—the office of civil government.

Third: Sunday is a religious day, a fact known alike to the citizens and honorable members of the legislature; and to enforce any religion, or any of the dogmas of any religion, by law, is beyond the legitimate domain of civil government. Every citizen has the right to be religious or not to be religious, as he may choose; and Article XLVIII of the constitution assures to him protection in the exercise of his right. Though all the people of Panama, both Catholic and Protestant, rest on Sunday as a religious duty, and seek legislation in its favor, and there remain a handful of Jews and Seventh-day Adventists who observe another day, and who can not conscientiously observe Sunday, it is the office of the government, in such case, to protect these citizens in their rights, as guaranteed by Article XXVI of the constitution. This same protection is extended to all the rest.

Fourth: We believe that laws are made for the lawless, and we heartily approve of all laws which provide punishment for crimes, such as theft, murder, or any act in which one citizen would trample upon the rights of another; but we protest against a law which defines as crime an act committed on Sunday which is legitimate on any other day of the week, or which requires, by civil enactment, conduct on one day of the week which it does not enforce every day.

We do not murmur against the noble work of our lawmakers; we instead rejoice in the freedom granted us under this constitution, and we are jealous of any legislation which has the appearance of interfering with the equity and justice which the citizens of Panama now enjoy.

B. E. CONNERLY.