THE readers of the SIGNS have been made aware of the Sunday Bill that is before the California Legislature. The bill when introduced in the Senate was referred to the Committee on Education and Public Morals, and on February 10 that committee granted a hearing to those who might desire to speak either for or against it.
The principal speaker in favor of the bill, a well-known clergyman of California, presented no new argument but placed particular stress upon the idea that this proposed Sunday law is in the interest of the laborer. He presented the oft-repeated statements that employers are very exacting of those they employ, requiring them in many instances to work full seven days in the week. And what is wanted, so he said, is a law that will compel these employers of labor to give their hands one day of rest in seven.
Another point he made quite prominent is the fact that California is the only State in the Union without a Sunday law, and he thought that this State should follow the example of the others.
When he was concluding his remarks the chairman asked him if it was intended that this law would stop the railroads and street-cars on Sunday. "O, no," replied the speaker "it is a settled fact that the railroads, the street-cars, and many large manufacturing and mining establishments have to run seven days in the week! These things would come under the works of necessity that must be done on all days of the week alike."
A few reflections upon the foregoing statements will be in place. If Sunday laws work such good for the States that have them, why are not the conditions in those States much better than they are in California? Why do we not find labor enjoying freedom from the oppressions of despotic employers in all the other States, and California standing alone in the so-called enslavement of the toiler who is compelled to work seven days in the week? As a matter of fact, California, without a Sunday law, gives just as great freedom to those who toil as is given by any of the States where the Sunday law exists. For there is no State in which the railroads, street-cars, and other corporations that employ large numbers of men may not be found quite as busy on Sunday as on any other day.
But the minister who was delegated to appear before the Senate Committee to urge the claims for a Sunday law said that it was not the intention to stop the railroads, street-cars, and large manufacturing and mining establishments. He classed these among the works of necessity that have to run every day in the week. Now if these are to be exempted, what will be left for a Sunday law to operate upon? The railroads, street-cars, manufactories, and mines cover nearly all the places where men labor for wages. And by what laws or basic principles can it be shown that large manufacturing plants should be allowed to run on Sunday and the smaller ones be required to close down? And what tribunal will decide just where the line should be drawn between the large and the small factories? The very fact that the advocates of Sunday laws are continually involved in so many contradictory and absurd positions should open the eyes of those who think, and who desire to be on the right side.
And, again, what right has even a minister to state what is the intent of a Sunday law? If a law is good, the intent of it is stated in plain language. It is as open as the day. It does not require any one to tell what it means, for it says what it means and means what it says. Now if the proposed Sunday law for California is intended to exempt railroads, street-cars, and large factories and mines, why not say it in just so many words in the law itself? One section of this law before the California Legislature reads as follows:—
"Nothing in this act contained shall be so construed as to prohibit, or render unlawful, on the first day of the week, ordinary manual labor performed by a member of the denomination called Seventh day Adventists, or Seventh-day Baptists, or Hebrews, who conscientiously and religiously observe and keep the seventh day of the week, or Saturday, as sacred to rest and to religious worship; provided, they do not by such work disturb Christian assemblies in their religious services or other religious duties on the first day, sabbath."
But if the railroads, etc., are to be among the things that can be kept running on Sundays, the above section should be amended. Another clause should be added, saying:—
"Neither shall anything contained in this act be construed to prohibit, or render unlawful, on the first day of the week, the running of railroads, street-cars, or large manufacturing or mining establishments."
If the law is not intended to stop these lines of industry on Sunday, it should say it plainly. And those who are asked to pass the law should be careful to consider that once a law is passed, the ministers who drew it up can not always be present to tell what it means. And then they are not sure to agree upon the subject anyway. It is indeed to be doubted whether all the ministers in California would have said, "Amen," when their brother clergyman told the Senate Committee that their Sunday law was not intended to apply to railroads, and so on.
Any law that is right needs to exempt no one. And when ambiguous and indefinite exemption clauses have to be added to a statute, else it will work oppression and hardship upon some, it is quite substantial evidence that such a law is not needed.
