Sunday-Closing Bill in Washington
By Editor
The following paragraphs are taken from the Washington Post of March 31:— The District Commissioners yesterday recommended favorable action upon H. R. bill 16483, which provides for certain places of business in the District to be closed on Sunday, referred to them for a report several weeks ago by Chairman Babcock, of the District Committee of the House. A public hearing was given by the Commissioners on this bill, and no opposition was offered, and it was apparently, according to the Commissioners, wanted by the community in general. The Commissioners in their report made the following statement upon the bill:— “The legislation proposed in this bill is substantially similar to that embodied in H. R. bill 11819, of the Fifty-eighth Congress, second session, having the same title, upon which the Commissioners made a favorable report, and which passed the House of Representatives. “The bill, if enacted, will give protection on their rest day to the classes which seem to be especially in need of it. It does not seem to be necessary to argue the well-settled question that legislation for the protection of the common day of rest is constitutional and expedient.” This is the bill to which reference was made in our editorial columns last week. If “a public hearing was given by the Commissioners on this bill, and no opposition was offered,” it was because those opposed to the bill had no notice of any such hearing. We have not thus far found any one who knew of any hearing on this bill. The matter will now be taken up with the House Committee on the District of Columbia. From the report of the Commissioners as given in the Evening Star of the same date, we take the following:— The Commissioners recommend that no action be taken upon H. R. bill 16556, “Prohibiting labor on buildings, and so forth, in the District of Columbia on the sabbath day,” and H. R. bill 10510, “To further protect the first day of the week as a day of rest in the District of Columbia,” which were also referred to them from your committee. Both of these bills have been quite fully discussed in the columns of the REVIEW.