STATE OF TENNESSEE,
IN THE
# SUPREME COURT.
STATE OF TENNESSEE
vs.
W. B. CAPPS, IN ERROR.
JACKSON, APRIL TERM, 1894.
Brief and Argument of W. L. Carter, of Counsel for the Defense.
(Concluded.)
But it has been said so often, and by such eminent authority that “Christianity is part of the law of the land,” that we give the following, which is conclusive of the question. Judge Allen G. Thurman, whose standing as a lawyer and statesman is second to no one, in the case above cited says:—
The Constitution having declared that all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience; that no human authority, whatever, can control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no man shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; and that no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship,—it follows that neither Christianity nor any other religion is a part of the laws of the State. Bloom vs. Richards, supra.
Continuing he says:—
We sometimes hear it said that all religions are tolerated in this State, but this is not strictly accurate; much less is it accurate to say that one religion is a part of the law and all the rest merely tolerated. It is not mere toleration that every individual has in his belief or disbelief. He reposes, not upon the leniency of the Government, or of any class or sect of men; but upon his natural and indefeasible rights of conscience, which, in the language of the Constitution, are “beyond the control or interference of any human authority.” Same; Lindsey vs. Coates, 1 Ohio State, 343.
In State vs. Chandler, 2 Har. (Del.), 553, Justice Clayton said:—
Even in England, Christianity was never considered as part of the common law so far as that, for a violation of its injunctions and independent of the established laws of man and without the sanction of any positive act of Parliament, any man could be called to answer in a court of common law.
As well stated by an eminent New York judge:—
The maxim that Christianity is a part of the common law has been frequently repeated by judges and text-writers, but few have ever examined its truth, or explained its meaning. If Christianity is a part of the municipal law in the proper sense of the term, as it must be if a part of the common law, every person is liable to be punished by civil power who fails to embrace its precepts; and if it must be conceded that in this sense the maxim is untrue, it ceases to be intelligible, since a law without sanction is an absurdity in logic and a nullity in fact. 4 Sanford’s Rep., 181.
Justice Welsh says:—
If Christianity is a law of the State, like every other law it must have a sanction. Adequate penalties must be provided to enforce obedience to all its requirements and precepts. No one contends for any such doctrine in this country, and I might almost say, in this age of the world. . . . True Christianity asks no aid from the sword of civil authority. It began without the sword, and whenever it has taken up the sword, it has perished by the sword. To depend on civil authority for its enforcement is to acknowledge its own weakness, which it can never afford to do. It is able to fight its own battles. Its weapons are moral and spiritual and not carnal. . . . It is not the power of man, but the power of God, on which it depends. 23 Ohio State, 211, Board of Education vs. Minor.
And on page 248 he says, “Legal Christianity is a solecism, a contradiction of terms.” The last named case was argued for the Board of Education by the Hon. Stanley Matthews, afterward Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and by Gov. Hoadley, afterwards governor of Ohio. The opinion, deciding unanimously in favor of the board, is one of the ablest expositions of the doctrine of the complete separation of the State from in any way interfering or influencing in religious matters, that has ever been given.
And thus authority might be given without limit, almost; and not only of the most eminent jurists, but also of such statesman as Washington (U. S. Stat., Vol. 8, 154), and of Jefferson (“Works of Thos. Jefferson,” Vol. I, p. 45), and others.
James Madison tersely says:—
The same authority that can establish Christianity to the exclusion of all other religions, with the same ease may establish any particular sect. “Writings of Jas. Madison,” Vol. I, p. 162.
We close this part of the discussion by the following quotation from Judge Cooley, whose reputation as a constitutional lawyer is perhaps greater than that of any living man:—
For these several reasons Christianity is not a part of the law of the land in any sense which entitles the courts to take notice of or base their judgments upon it. “Constitutional Limitations,” 584.
So far, then, as the Parker case is based on the statement of the chief justice that “Christianity is a part of the law of the land,” it is unfounded.
The second proposition is equally unfounded.
IS SUNDAY LABOR IMMORAL?
By W. L. Carter; S. F. Wilson
Outside of purely religious feelings, or precepts, no one regards Sunday labor as different from labor on any other day of the week. This is shown by the fact that Jews, Sabbatarians, and all others who do not attach any special religious significance to the day, do not regard Sunday labor as immoral. And the Jews are noted as moralists. If the question were asked, Why should not persons labor on Sunday? no reason could be given other than that it is contrary to our religious belief. It is the day, not the deed. And what is there peculiar about the day that distinguishes it from other days of the week, except that it is regarded as sacred by a large part of the people? There is no difference by nature. We could not tell when Sunday came except by the calendar. Nor will it do to say that it is set apart by civil law; for that would not affect the moral aspects of the labor. By
law a thing can be made malum prohibitum but not malum in se. There are many things that are prohibited by law, such as hunting at certain seasons certain game, fishing in streams in certain ways, license and revenue law, etc., in which there is no moral turpitude involved. The law does not affect the morality of an act. It would be just as immoral to steal without a law on the subject as it is with it. It is well shown in the well-known division of crimes into the two classes malum prohibitum and malum in se. But the learned chief justice in the Parker case says that the legislature prohibited Sunday labor because it was immoral. The act of the legislature did not make it immoral, but the law was made because of the immoral character of the act.
Nor can it be immoral because it shocks our religious feelings or belief.
The devout Catholic believes it to be immoral to eat meat on Friday. It is not the eating of the meat, but the day on which it is done that shocks his moral sense. He is taught this by his religion. But it is no more immoral to eat meat on Friday than it is to labor on Sunday. There might be a majority of the citizens of the State Catholics, and they prohibit the eating of meat on Friday (like Sunday laws, for health, or sanitary reasons), but would it be held that repeated acts of eating meat on Friday was immoral because a majority regarded it so, and that it would constitute a nuisance?
Again, the Jews and Sabbatarians regard Saturday as sacred, and it would be a shock to their religious feelings to see the day desecrated, if they were largely in the majority; and if they had the power, they might and probably would set apart the day, as Sunday now is set apart by the majority. Would then a repetition of acts of labor on Saturday become a nuisance? Or in a community composed mostly of Mohammedans would it be immoral to labor on the sixth day of the week, or Friday? And would repeated acts of the kind constitute a nuisance?
It has been held in several cases that Sunday labor is immoral, but the reason given is that it is a desecration of “the sacred institution of the Sabbath” (Sorter vs. State, 5 Eng. [Ark.], 259; Pearce vs. Atwood, 13 Mass., 324; Lyon vs. Strong, 6 Vt., 219; Adams vs. Gay, 19 Vt., 358), and “because not in unison with our holy religion.” Amis vs. Kyle, 2 Yerger, 31; Lindenmuller’s case, 33 Barb., N. Y., 548.
None have ever given any reason for holding Sunday labor immoral on any but religious grounds, and certainly no other can be found.
As before shown, it cannot be so held in this State, because, in order to do so, the courts would have first to decide that Sunday was a sacred or religious day, and thus decide a matter that is in controversy between Christians themselves, as well as against Jews, etc. In other words the courts cannot decide questions of religion at all,—not even as to whether a question is one that is held by any sect to be true or not true.
The courts cannot decide whether Sunday, the first day of the week, is the “Sabbath,” or whether Saturday, the seventh day, is the one to observe. Hence the courts cannot hold that Sunday labor is immoral because it is a desecration of the Sabbath; because they would first have to decide that that day was the Sabbath.
As stated, no case has ever based the182statement that Sunday labor is immoral on other than religious grounds.
But by far the ablest as well as the most numerous authorities have upheld the constitutionality of Sunday statutes on purely secular grounds,—the power of the legislature to forbid labor on one day of the week,—and expressly state that the question of morals and religion is not involved at all.
Of course all persons know that the Sunday laws have always been based on, and are essentially a part of, the teachings of the Church; but while admitting this fact, they are sustained on other grounds.
The following authorities show conclusively that there is no moral turpitude involved in Sunday labor. In New York it was said that:—
In so far as the business is immoral, the permitted sales are just as immoral as those prohibited. Business transactions which are void, are void not because they are immoral, but because they are prohibited by law. Styles vs. Smith, 12 Wendell, 57.
And Judge Thurman, of Ohio, says:—
The act does not, to any extent, rest on the grounds that it is immoral or irreligious to labor on the Sabbath any more than upon any other day. Bloom vs. Richards, 3 Ohio State, 387.
To the same effect are Mahone vs. Cook, 26 Pa., 342; Dale vs. Knapp, 98 Pa., 389; M’Gatrick vs. Newman, 4 Ohio State, 566; L. & N. R. R. case, 80 Ky., 291; Sandstorm vs. State, 25 Tex. App. 133. As stated by Mr. Ringgold, “It is safe to say that anything may be done on Sunday that may be done on any other day unless prohibited by statute.” Ringgold’s “Law of Sunday,” 226; Benham vs. Ohio, 12 So. Reporter, 996.
That Sunday labor is not immoral, is shown by the fact that Sabbatarians are exempted from the penalties for Sunday labor in many States.
There are nineteen States that expressly exempt from the operation of the statutes against Sunday labor, persons who from religious motives keep sacred some other day of the week: Ark. Act. 1884, chap. 45; Conn. 1888, chap. 99; Ill. Rev. Stat. 261; Ind. Rev. Stat., 2000; Iowa Code, sec. 5438; Kans. Gen’l. Stat., 2396; Ky. Gen’l. Stat., chap. 21, sec. 10; Maine Rev. Stat., chap. 124, sec. 223; Mass. Gen. Stat., chap. 28, sec. 13; Mich. Howells Anno. Stat., sec. 2015–22; Minn. Acts, Vol. 2, p. 2984; Neb. Comp. Stat., sec. 241; N. J. Rev. Stat., p. 1227, sec. 33; N. D. Comp. Stat., 6243; Ohio, Rev. Stat., sec. 7033; R. I. Pub. Stat., chap. 244, sec. 18; Va. Code, sec. 3800; W. Va. Code, chap. 149, sec. 17; Wis. Anno. Stat., sec. 4596.
If Sunday labor is immoral, these States grant the right to certain of their citizens to do that which is immoral, and if a succession of such acts constitutes a nuisance, those States permit nuisances because of the religious belief or acts of the exempted class.
California, Idaho, and Arizona have no Sunday laws at all; and if the Sunday nuisance theory is to prevail, they allow as a right the carrying on of that which is a nuisance, without let or hindrance.
Other States (Kansas, Nevada, etc.) prohibit games, amusements and the like, but allow honest labor on Sunday. These statutes show that in the minds of the legislatures of the States, Sunday laws rest not upon moral grounds at all, but are purely religious regulations.
A moment’s observation will at once show that there is no question of morals involved in Sunday labor. We see street cars, omnibuses, and other means of travel or transit in cities carried on every Sunday. And so far from regarding it as immoral, there are few people, indeed, who will not patronize them. And should there be one who does not, it is from strict religious scruples. The question of morals is never thought of.
The same might be said of the railroads, steamboats, livery stables, news agents, etc., etc. Did the thought ever occur to one that when he buys his Sunday newspaper he is guilty of an immoral act? or when he takes a car and travels to his place of business in order to be ready on Monday to commence his labors, that he has been guilty of that which, if repeated, becomes a nuisance and indictable as such?
It having been as we claim, demonstrated that there is no question of morals involved in Sunday labor, if then, such labor does not interfere with nor disturb others, a succession of such acts cannot become a nuisance.
It follows that as the acts of defendant, in laboring on his farm on Sunday were not immoral in themselves, and as no one was molested, disturbed, or interfered with thereby, the two separate acts or any number of such, did not become a public nuisance. And he is amenable only to the penalty prescribed by the statute, sec. 2289, for having followed his usual avocation on Sunday.
In 1890, in the case of R. M. King, this question was again before this court, and without giving any written opinion the decision of the lower court convicting the defendant was affirmed. He afterwards applied to the U. S. Court, Judges Hammond and Jackson, for discharge on habeas corpus. Judge Hammond, in an ably written opinion, said that if the question were on its merits before him he would have no difficulty in deciding that King had not been convicted of violating any law. But he dismissed the case on the ground that the courts of the State had jurisdiction to try and determine the case, and having done so, the Federal courts could not interfere with the sentence, however erroneous it might be.
Then, in the language of Chief Justice Nicholson, “to hold that labor becomes a nuisance, simply because it is carried on on Sunday is a perversion of the term nuisance.” This is true, both on principle and authority, and the defendant if amenable at all to law, could only be proceeded against under the statute.
It is a fact, worthy of remark, that if the Sunday law against labor were enforced, the consequences would be destructive to all interests, to an extent not usually thought of. Suppose the railroads, steamboats, street cars, and all other public carriers were stopped; the sale of papers, books, magazines, etc., punished; livery stables and messengers indicted as nuisances; and, as was once done in Massachusetts, persons were indicted for gathering sticks to make fires,—and all because of the day being Sunday,—would not consternation spread to such an extent that laws would be speedily passed that would put a stop to such relics of barbarism?
It is also worthy of remark that while the labor as enumerated above, is openly, publicly, and notoriously carried on every Sunday, and has been at all times in the past, there has never yet been a case of a single conviction for Sunday labor in the State since its foundation, except the person convicted was a member of the sect known as Seventh-day Adventists; and in no instance has the labor complained of been such as to molest or interfere with the comfort, well-being, or rights of others. For this reason, the prosecution smacks so strongly of religious persecution, that it should be repelled from the courts.
W. L. CARTER,
Counsel for Defendant.
S. F. WILSON,
W. L. CARTER,
Counsel for the Defense.
Why Exempt “Conscientious” Seventh-day Baptists, if Sunday Laws Are not Religious?
The provision in many of the Sunday laws, while adopted in order to do justly, apparently, by Sabbath-keepers, Jews and Christians, is wholly unmeaning and unjust if Sunday be only a “civil institution.” Why must one be conscientious in observing the Sabbath, before he can be permitted to do secular business on Sunday, except that the law assumes that he must be religious on one day or the other? If Sunday is only a dies non, merely a civil holiday or rest day, why put it on a basis unlike that of Thanksgiving day, Christmas, or the Fourth of July? These are dies non. This is as far as civil authority has any right to go; as far as civil rights demand that it shall go. How farcical to demand that before one be permitted to work on the Fourth of July he shall patriotically observe another day! No legislature would think of enacting a183law that everybody must feast upon Thanksgiving, except such as shall prove that they have gorged on turkey and cranberry sauce the day before. In short, no holiday except Sunday is hedged about with statutes forbidding labor or amusement on the part of those who have refrained from those on a previous day designated by the statute. It is unjust and unchristian to forbid Sabbath-keepers to labor on Sunday. It is a shameful relic of Middle Age bigotry and intolerance to punish them for so doing. But there is neither consistency, justice, nor religious freedom in exempting them because they have been “conscientious,” or religious in observing the day previous. Inconsistencies could scarcely be more glaring than those are which are presented in connection with Sunday legislation and its enforcement.—Evangel and Sabbath Outlook.
Making Merchandise of Religion.
By J. S. Comins
A LECTURE was recently delivered in Holyoke, Mass., which to my mind is worthy of note. The lecturer was sent out by a syndicate of food firms for the purpose of creating a demand by stimulating public sentiment in favor of the foods handled by these firms. The lecturer’s method is to reach the “better” classes by giving his lectures under the auspices of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union or the Young Men’s Christian Association, or some other popular society. Having secured his audience of the well-to-do, his first step is to create a distrust in the minds of his hearers in regard to food producers in general. Even the honest old farmers of Vermont toiling amid their sugar camps in the Green Mountains are made to appear as unprincipled adulterators of the sweet extracts from their woody vales.
The lecturer himself appears more honorable by contrast and by the very contempt which he manifests for such things. He would scorn anything that came short of the highest Christian integrity. Neither was he alone in his views. The firms which he represented were all of them composed of high-toned, honorable, Christian gentlemen. Temperance men; God fearing men; men who respected the Sabbath. None of their products were manufactured or transported upon the Sabbath day. Surely such men were worthy of patronage. Their products cost a trifle more, but you could rest assured that such men would give you only the genuine article.
I thought that the fact that the religion of these men, and especially their observance of Sunday was made so prominent a feature of this lecture, and a reason why they should be patronized was significant.
J. S. COMINS.
Grants of Public Money for Parochial Schools.
A CAMPAIGN is being waged at the doors of Congress against those items in the Indian Appropriation bill providing for the support of parochial schools. The opponents of the appropriations for schools under church management claim that they have a large number of members of the House pledged to fight the grants when the bill is brought up. They represent that during the past eight years a total of $2,366,416 has been given to the Roman Catholic schools out of $3,767,951 appropriated, and that the proportion given to the Catholic schools is steadily increasing since the Congregational, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopal churches have withdrawn their applications for funds.
The whole amount asked for this year is said to be nearly $400,000, to be distributed among forty-five Roman Catholic schools. The particular items in the bill which congressmen are asked to oppose are for the following schools: St. Boniface, Banning, Cal., $12,500; Holy Family, Blackfeet, Mont., $12,500; St. John's, Collegeville, Minn., $10,000; St. Benedict's, Stearns County, $10,000; St. Paul's, Clontarf, Minn., $10,000; St. Ignatius, Jocko, Cal., $45,000; St. Joseph's, Renssalaer, Ind., $8,330; Kate Drexel, Umatilla, Ore., $9,000.
THE attempt has been renewed to induce the present Congress to take action on the proposed amendment recognizing the name of God in the Constitution. We have never been much impressed by the arguments of those who urge this amendment. Considering the enormous difficulty of passing an amendment to the Constitution, and the slight gain that would accrue from the mere mention of God in that document, this agitation seems to us like hunting snipe with a howitzer. The same amount of effort and ammunition rightly expended would carry havoc into the ranks of the enemy. The putting of the name of God into the Constitution will make the United States neither more nor less a Christian nation than it now is; and if it were really a Christian nation, what would the presence or the absence of the name import?—N. Y. Examiner.
OUR PRISON LIGHT
Edited by one sending the Third Angel's Message to the perishing in prisons all over the land. Agents wanted, 50 per cent. commission. Trial year 20 cents. Terms and sample copy 2 cent stamp. Indorsed by the SENTINEL.
PRISON LIGHT, 40 Green Street, Brattleboro, Vt.
Apples of Gold Library
ENVELOPE SERIES
THIS is the title of a little monthly publication recently started by the Pacific Press, and is designed especially for use in personal correspondence. It is printed on thin paper, and one or two numbers can be put in a No. 6 envelope, with an ordinary letter, without increasing the postage.
The following numbers have already been issued:—
No. 1. Looking unto Jesus.
“ 2. The Christian's Privilege.
“ 3. The Sure Promises of God.
“ 4. How to Get Knowledge.
“ 5. The Church and the World. (Poetry.)
“ 6. The Elect of God.
“ 7. How Esther Read Her Bible.
“ 8. The Thief on the Cross.
“ 9. The Eleventh Hour.
“ 10. Benefits of Bible Study.
“ 11. Righteousness; Where Is It to be Found?
Five copies for one year, postpaid, 50 cents; or 12 copies for $1.00. Single subscriptions are not desirable, for two reason: (1) The numbers being so small they are liable to be lost in the mails. (2) If they are used in correspondence, as recommended, more than one copy would be necessary.
Single or assorted numbers of the Library will be mailed in quantities at the following rates: 50 cents per hundred, or $4.00 per thousand copies. Always order by the NUMBER.
IS THE PAPACY IN PROPHECY?
By Thomas W. Haskins
BY THE
Rev. Thomas W. Haskins, M. A.,
Rector Christ Church, Los Angeles, Cal.
The above is the title of a treatise written by the author, at the request of the Ministerial Union of Los Angeles, California. It grew out of a discussion upon the present aspect and aims of
The Roman Catholic Church in the United States,
the author taking the ground that the rise, progress, present and future condition of the temporal power known as the Papacy, or Vaticanism,
Is Outlined in the Prophecies of Holy Scriptures,
with sufficient accuracy to determine what the “Papacy” is, and what is to be its future development and ultimate end.
Paper Covers, - - - 25 Cents.
Cloth Covers, - - - - 60 Cents.
Mailed, post-paid, on receipt of price.
The Law of God as Changed by the Papacy
Is the title of a large Chart just issued, which shows in a striking manner the blasphemous pretensions of the Papal power. The testimony of the Best Catholic Authorities is given, and shows, by quoting their own words, that Sunday is a child of the Catholic Church. These quotations, together with admissions from standard Catholic works, are arranged in parallel columns on either side of this Chart, while the center column contains the Ten Commandments as taught by the Catholic Church. The whole forms a collection of extracts of incalculable value for every Bible student.
The Charts are three by four feet in size, and are printed on heavy map cloth in bold type, easily read across the largest room.
Price, Post-paid, $1.00.
A fac-simile edition on thin paper, size 5½ × 7½ inches, suitable for missionary distribution, has been prepared, and will be sent post-paid at 50 cents per hundred, or $4.00 per thousand.
Address
Pacific Press,
43 Bond Street, New York City.
or Oakland, Cal.
PUBLICATIONS ON THE SABBATH QUESTION.
Read the following and see if there is not some publication among them which you desire to read, or which will benefit some friend:—
The Abiding Sabbath. By A. T. JONES. No. 9 of the Bible Students’ Library. This is a review of two Sabbath “prize essays,” one of $500, and one of $1,000. It contains mighty arguments on the Sabbath question; 174 pages; price, 15 cents.
Is Sunday the Sabbath? No. 24 of the Library. A brief consideration of New Testament texts on the first day of the week; 8 pages; price, 1 cent.
Nature and Obligation of the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment. By J. H. Waggoner. No. 54 of the Library. Clear and strong in argument; price, 10 cents.
Sunday; Origin of its Observance in the Christian Church. By E. J. Waggoner. No. 80 of the Library. The testimony given with reference to Sunday is wholly Protestant. All Protestants should read it; price, 15 cents.
Who Changed the Sabbath? No. 107 of the Library. What God’s Word predicted; what Christ says; what the papacy says; what Protestants say. A most convincing document; 24 pages; price, 3 cents.
“The Christian Sabbath.” No. 113 of the Library. A reprint of four articles in the Catholic Mirror, the organ of Cardinal Gibbons. What Catholics have to say to Protestants on the subject; 32 pages; price, 4 cents.
Christ and the Sabbath. By Prof. W. W. Prescott. The spiritual nature of the Sabbath, what true Sabbath keeping is, and the relation of Christ to the Sabbath in both creation and redemption. A most important tract. No. 14 of the Religious Liberty Library; 38 pages; price, 5 cents.
The History of the Sabbath. By John N. Andrews. A complete history of the Sabbath and first day of the week in religious life and thought, from the earliest ages to the present time, and especially during the Christian dispensation; 550 large octavo pages; price, cloth, $2.00; library binding, $2.50.
STEPS TO CHRIST,
By Mrs. E. G. White.
We take pleasure in announcing an important and exceedingly helpful work, under the title of STEPS TO CHRIST. The rare ability of the author in the presentation of Scripture truth has never been used to better advantage than in this little work. STEPS TO CHRIST is not alone suitable as a guide to the inquirer and young convert, but is rich in thought and suggestion for the most mature Christian. Some idea of its scope and practical character may be gathered from the following table of contents:—
THE SINNER'S NEED OF CHRIST.REPENTANCE.
CONFESSION.CONSECRATION.FAITH AND ACCEPTANCE.
THE TEST OF DISCIPLESHIP.GROWING UP INTO CHRIST.
THE WORK AND THE LIFE.KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.
THE PRIVILEGE OF PRAYER.WHAT TO DO WITH DOUBT.
REJOICING IN THE LORD.
The book is issued in a rich, neat cloth binding, embossed in silver, at 75 cents per copy; in white vellum cloth, silver edges, $1.00. Sent by mail, post-paid, on receipt of price.
Address
Pacific Press,
43 Bond Street, New York City.
or Oakland, Cal.
MAKE
BREAD, GEMS AND CAKES
By F. W. BARTLE
OF
EUREKA HEALTH FLOUR.
A WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR
Which competent authorities recommend as “THE BEST FLOUR MADE.”
It contains three to four times more of Bone, Brain, Nerve and Muscle building elements than ordinary white flour.
Invaluable for dyspeptics, all invalids, and growing children. Everyone likes it. Used by the largest sanitariums.
Special Offer.—Half barrel, $3.25; one barrel, $6.00; freight paid. Usually retailed at $7.00 to $10.00 per barrel. If not perfectly satisfactory return at my expense and get your money. Agents wanted. Wholesale and retail dealers supplied. Circulars and recipes, for stamp.
F. W. BARTLE,Sales Agent,Oxford, N. Y.
REFERRING to the Capps case the Jackson Daily Whig says:—
The supreme court, Judge McAlister delivering the opinion of the court, yesterday morning affirmed the case of W. B. Capps vs. the State, a case appealed from Weakley County.
Capps is a Seventh-day Adventist, and believes that Saturday is the Sabbath of the Bible, and that there is no divine warrant for changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. He acted upon his conviction and kept Saturday as his Sabbath and true day of rest. On Sunday he went forth to his work, plowing, cutting stalks, etc. This shocked the sensibilities of his neighbors whose attention was attracted by the unusual spectacle. Capps was indicted in the circuit court of Weakley County, and there being no dispute as to facts, he was convicted, and Judge Swiggart fined him $10. The defendant claimed, of course, that he had committed no offense, and that his arrest and fine were illegal and unconstitutional and violative of that religious liberty guaranteed to all citizens of the United States by the Constitution thereof.
Judge McAlister said that the settled law of this State was against the defendant, and referred especially to the recent case of King vs. the State. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.
The sentence of the court may seem light, but it is sufficient to keep Mr. Capps in jail for not less than sixty days. The fine alone, at twenty-five cents per day, the credit allowed by the State, is equivalent to forty days in jail, while the costs will make it considerably more.
The probate court at Buffalo has been asked to decide a question which may prove to be as far-reaching in its consequences as any ever decided by any court. Notwithstanding constitutional guarantees of religious liberty, the courts of the United States, and of various States, have from time to time assumed to say that this is a Christian nation, and that Christianity is a part of the law of the land, etc. But aside from Sunday observance it has not been very clearly defined what constituted the official Christianity which is a part of our common law, or that in the case of the country at large constitutes this a “Christian nation.” The Buffalo decision may aid materially in elucidating this question and in adding another article to the national creed.
The question to be decided by the Buffalo court has been stated thus:—
Is the soul immortal? Do masses celebrated by the Roman Catholic Church benefit the dead?
The facts which raised this question, or these questions, rather, have been given thus: Mrs Catherine Backus, who died in Buffalo last January, bequeathed her estate, consisting of $1,000 in cash, to Nicholas Bashman as trustee, to be expended by him for masses “for the benefit of my poor soul and that of my deceased husband.” Mrs Backus’ children contested the will on the grounds that the trustee was invested with too much discretionary power and that the soul is at best an intangible legatee, and that there is no competent evidence before the court that Mrs. Backus or her husband was possessed of a soul for which a trust might be held.
Great possibilities are bound up in this question. We have for a long time known that sooner or later the dogma of the immortality of the soul would be officially indorsed by our Government, but just how this was to be brought about was not easy to see. But the Buffalo case points out the probable course the matter will take. Once in the courts the dogma of natural immortality, or life without Christ, can easily become an article of governmental religion.
MAY 25, the General Assembly of the Southern Presbyterian Church, in session at Nashville, declined to sustain the appeal of the Charleston Presbytery against the synod of South Carolina in the celebrated Means case. Miss Sadie M. Means, an employée of the Telephone Exchange in Columbia, S. C., was dismissed by the session of the Second Presbyterian Church of that city for violation of the Sabbath, in that she performed her duties at the exchange on Sunday from 9 o’clock A. M., until 1 o’clock P. M. A. M. Monteith and Emma M. Monteith, brother-in-law and sister of Miss Means, appealed the case to Charleston Presbytery, and the presbytery indorsed the action of the session. The appeal was then carried to the synod of South Carolina, and this body reversed the action of the presbytery of the session and ordered Miss Means restored to the church.
This the session failed to do, and Charleston Presbytery appealed to the general assembly. The vote to sustain was 48; to partially sustain, 8; not to sustain, 77. The effect of this action of the assembly will be that Miss Means will be restored to communion in the Second Presbyterian Church.
This action is fitting. Sunday being only an institution of the church, resting only upon human authority, it is eminently proper that churches should define the relation of their members to it. The Southern Presbyterian Church evidently recognizes the fact that there is no divine command for Sunday observance, else the highest court of that church would scarcely dare to excuse people from keeping it holy.
THE case against Elder W. A. McCutchen and Prof. Elmer C. Keck, at Gainesville, Ga., for Sunday work, has been postponed by request of the prosecuting attorney until August. Some doubt is expressed that the case will ever be tried again.
It seems that the cause of legal Sunday sacredness is not to lose its influential champion, Col. W. C. P. Breckinridge, the self-confessed adulterer, and father of the Breckinridge Sunday bill. It is said that his renomination and re-election are now assured.
We print this week the conclusion of the brief of W. L. Carter, of counsel for the defense in the Capps case before the Tennessee Supreme Court. It is an able, candid, and temperate presentation of the law and precedents in such cases; and is withal convincing; nevertheless it failed to so impress the court, and the decision of the lower court has been affirmed. This commits Tennessee fully to a course of religious persecution under the forms of law, but without any statute authorizing anything of the kind. Sabbath-keepers in that State may as well be prepared for the worst. The courts stand ready to do the bidding of religious prejudice, bigotry and intolerance.
An Oshkosh, Wis., paper says, “The Sunday Observance Society has by no means gone to sleep. Another public meeting of the society will be held on Wednesday evening at the First Methodist Church, the other evangelical churches having adjourned their regular prayer-meetings for that purpose. Several speakers and interesting music have been secured for that occasion.”
And yet we are told the Sunday is a civil institution and that Sunday laws are in no wise religious. But the churches adjourn their prayer meetings to secure their enforcement. Do they do this for any other “civil” law?
Nos. 119 and 121 of the Bible Students’ Library have reached our table. These are both good numbers.
No. 119, “The Kingdom of Christ,” contains 16 pages, and shows in an interesting way the nature of the kingdom and its subjects, and when and how it will be established—not when as to definite time, but in its relation to other events. Price, 2 cents.
No. 121, “The Temporal Millennium,” is a 24 page tract. It should be in the hands of every lover of Bible truth for on few points do the people need instruction more than on this one. The doctrine of a temporal millennium is a soul-destroying delusion, and this tract is well calculated to make this fact clear to the reader. Price, 3 cents.
Order of Pacific Press, 43 Bond Street, New York City.
CHARLES F. PARMELE, Mount Holly, N. J., desires late, clean copies of the AMERICAN SENTINEL for missionary work.