Arizona weekly enterprise., 1890-04-26
Why They Can Not See It?


 tee on District of Columbia, on the Breckinridge Sunday bill. It con tains good points
 This bill, instead of having a civil character, is q purely religious do cument, as you will notice by an ex- amition of it. A civil bill can make provisions for only civil matters; but this one enjoins the observance of a day, the non-Observance of which is no incivility to any one. Sunday ob- servance originated in religious wor- ship, and has ever been regarded as a purely religious rite. Civil otfenses are those which invade the rights of property or person; but if one labors on Sunday, he invades the rights oi no human being. He robs no one of any property or of single personal right. His neighhor may observe the day if he choose, just the same as if the other man were doing so.
 It s not the day in which tine act is performed which makes 1t civil or un- civil. It is just as wrong to strike a man in the face on Monday, as to do it on Sunday. IL Is just as wrong to drink whisky on Monday, as 10 drink it on Sunday. If it were trne that the day itself could constitute an act civil offense, then it might be argued that labor on Sunday is civil ofense. But just as soon as the po' sition is assumed that labor is a civil offense Ono matter on what day it is periormed), then labor is made a crime. Therefore. by the terms of this bill, honest labor becomes a crime, for it expressly iorbids any one 10 perform honest labor.
 It may be said that labor becomes a crime by being performed on Sun day. But if labor is crime when done on one day of the week, it is a crime on every day of the week, since it is not the day on which deed is done that constitutes a crime, but the deed itself must be the crime Gf crime it is) on whatever day it is per formed. So then, if the courts of the country recognize the principle that labor done on one day is a crime, when Dn all other days of the week the same labor would be lawful, then they really legalize crime on every day of the week except that one. This shows
 he ialsity of the claim that this bill $ civil one.
 But it may be said that it is the dis -urbance to others, by the perform ,,,o 1e G,,n1oxy Ia ahor that ponS . ,utes it a crime. But why should Sunday labor disturb another any more than that which is done on any other day of the week? Manifestly, only because it is thought to be re- igiously wrong. In other words, such disturbance can only be of q mental character. For instance, when l go out into my garden and luietly work, or even go out in the street and work on Sunday, l have .aken nothing from any man. l do not deprive him of his right to keep he day. Then wherein is the disturb ance? Certainly not in the depriva- ion of rights. It must then only be | mental disturbance. Upon this point, allow me to cite the decision of Judge Walton, of Lewiston, in a case where a man was prosecuted for draw ng cordwood through the streets on sunday. In his charge to the jury
 he Judge said that his impression was that the complaint could not be for the defendant had luietly and in an unObtrusiye man ner hauled hss wood, without com
 ng into the immediate neighborhood 1f Il meeting, The prosecuting at iorney suggested that it might have been where people were returning home from church. But the Judge decided that would be but mental operation, a matter of the mind, of because they thought it wrong, that it did not look right. For my part" he says, q do not see why any one driving quietly along with his load on one day of the week should cause any more disturbance than ou any other day of the week. It only disturbs people because they think it wrong" And this is the basis of all Sunday legislation. People think Sunday work to be wrong, and are therefore disturbed because some one else does not believe just the same as they do in the matter.
 But if mental disturbance consti- tutes civil offense, then the preach ing of opinions diverse from those of the majority of people IS also 8 civil and is indictable in the courts of the country; for as you have seen to-day by the personalities indnlged in, there are men who are more or less disturbed by such work. It is thus easy to see that auch reasoning would quickly deprive the minority of all their religious rights. Let such q bill as this pass, and 1t would be but step to make all mental dis turbance on Sunday crIme. Then woe betide the man who dared pub licIy to proclaim any religious views on that day not in harmony with his There is danger in taking the first step in religious legislation. It is every ones privilege to keep the not as civil duty, but as a religious duty. That is, however, q matter belonging wholly to individ- pals as a right of conscience, with which the courts have nothing to do, except to protect each one from dis turbance in his devotiGns. But this bill is not necessary for that purpose, for every State and Territory in this Union has already law providing that religious meetings, held on any day of the week, shall be protected from disturbance.
 l wish here to reiterate the state ment, that Sunday was set apart only for religious reason and l will sub init, on this point, and extract from the argument of Rufus King, made be- fore the Superior Court of Cineinnati, in the well known case which was tried to decide the question as to whether or not the Bible should be taught in the public schools of that city. Mr King was attempting to show, in support of having the Bible
 taught as 2 part of the public eduGa-
 ton, that it was the province of the
 State to enforce religion. And 10 prove
 his position true he cited the Sun.
 day law of that State, saying :-
 The proviso of the Sunday law exempts
 those only who conscientiously observe the
 seventh day of the week as the Sabbath
 Why are they exempted? Why, but because
 they religiously observe another Sabbath