St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-25
SUNDAY LAW CONTROVERSY.
Mr.. Phelps Returns to the Attack
with VigOr.

Mr.. Phelps Returns to the Attack
with yigor.
To the Editor of the Globe.
In your issue of the 18th Mr..
Gmeiner has attempted a defense of
statute Sunday laws. He attempts
to dispel the mental darkness" in
which he finds the mind of the writer
enshrouded by showing the differ
ence between personal, civil and
religious liberty in America" And
then he proceeds to pronounce the
judgment OF Punishment upon all
who cannot agree with him in words
as follows: And whoever does not
like it is at liberty to emigrate to
chimes where nobody will object to
the full enjoying of his personal lib
erty"
In all this Mr.. G.. has erected a
man of straw that he might destroy
1T, for by reference to my original
article it will be found that L did not
say one word about personal" or
civil or religious liberty" The
whole drift Of my argument was to
show that Sunday laws are an in
fringement Of the rights of the peo-
pie, an invasion of equal rights of
all men, even though they be friends
Of Sunday laws. And it is a fact that
stealing, murder and adultery. to
which he refers, are an invasion of
these rights. OF course no man can
steal another's goods, take the life
or invade the chastity of another
without infringing upon the equal
rights of others. And this, the equal
rights of others, is the one Iimita-
ton that bounds all in the exercise
of their natural rights.
But the Sunday laws are not a
parallel. They are the very opposite
Oh TINS. Laws against theft, muir
der and adultery are barrier
against the invasion of these rights.
while Sunday laws are an invasion
OF these rights, as can be seen upon
examination, and as many can testi-
~ from experience. 1t is the in
allenable right Of all men to seek
their own happiness in their own
way, remembering the only one linn
1tatlon. One man seeks his happi-
ness in the religious observance of
Sunday, while another has the
equal right to seek his happiness in
pleasure. One would seek happiness
In religion and in religious observ-
ances; another in irreligion.
Now the exercise of all these rights
by all these different parties in no Way
conflicts with the rights of another.
The irreligious man or the pleasure
seeker will in no way try to impose
his choice upon the religious, and the
religious, if he be Christian will not
endeayor to. coerce the disbeliever.
But 1t is a fact that these Sunday
laws do invade these rights-coerce
the conscience of the disbelieyer. de-
prive of the right of liberty all who
refuse obedience to them in the exer-
else of their God-given rights to spend
six days in labor and rest on the sew
enth day of the week. They deny the
right, recognized by the Author of the
Christian religion, of all men to re-
ce1Ve or to reject even the GOSPEL.
Listen to His words: eff any man
hear my words and believe not, I Judge
him not, for 1 came not to Judge the
world but to save the world" John
xii, A. But Sunday laws Judge and
condemn at once.
Mir. Gmeiner refers to legal holidays
and asks: Does Mr.. Phelps consider
1t an invasion of religious liberty if a
state legislature makes Washington's
or Lincoln's birthday legal holiday"
Here again, there is no parallel.
Where is the law that compels the OBJ
servance of these days by cessation of
labor or seeking of pleasure? If the
legislature of a state should en-
deaVor to enact such holidays as these.
it would be an invasion of equal rights.
Every seventh day is not declared a
legal holiday by these Sunday laws, as
he would fain make us believe. But
these laws do declare the Sunday to
be the Lords day and the Sabbath
day, day for religious rest and wor-
ship, as may be seen by reference to
our various state Sunday laws. In
fact, they We're enacted in Difference
to a religious sentiment. and for the
protection of the day as a religious in
stitution, which is in no instance the
case with legal holidays.
In all this we can see that Sunday
laws do elevate religious institution
by force of civil law" and all the ar
guments of the advocates of these laws
and all the decisions of courts will
never change the facts in the case. If
all the courts in the world should de-
eide that white were black, or vice
versa, it would not make it so. So
also, if all the theology in the world
should agree that the Lords day was
Sunday, and if all the Sunday laws in
the world should enforce it as such, 1t
would not make it fact And though
all the theologians in all the world
should agree and argue that the Sun
day laws were not an invasion of the
inalienable rights of the people, that
they were not in the interests of a re-
ligious institution, but rather protec-
ton of these rights,it could not make it
so, for it would be an utter impossible
1ty. Facts and logic are stern Great
ures to deal with. III. F. PHELPS.