St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-16
STRINGENT SUNDAY LAWS.
Legislature in Danger of Infring-
ing Upon Personal Liberty.

ing Upon Personal Liberty.
To the Editor Of the Globe
Dear Sir: 1 have been watching the
papers with considerable degree of in
terest, thinking that there would be
some protests against the proposed
Sunday bills now pending in our legis-
lature. 1 have thought this, because
they certainly involve the question of
the Sunday papers as well as that of
the Sunday theater. 1t may all be true
that so far as this present legislature
is concerned the prevailing sentiment
is in favor of the true American idea
against all religious legislation. But
the very fact that after the Judiciary
committee recommended that theater
Sunday bill for indefinite postponement
there were found some who favored it
toIthat extent that it was resurrected.
is danger signal and proof that all
is not pure coin. 1t is also worthy of
note that among the so-called religi-
Gus element the sentiment in
favor of religious legislation is
on the increase to that ex-
tent that in some of the states men
have been elected on this very issue,
under promise of doing all in their
..
This may even have been the case in
this state, and present indications IA
vor the idea.
To present the principle plainly be-
fore you I will ask a question: Why
is it that we, as Seventh Day Advent
lists, enjoying the benefits, so to speak,
of an exc rption clause in our favor but
that exemption declares the injustice
slider the theater and many of the pop
uIar amusements as Objectionable
places of resort for Christians; why is
it that we should manifest any inter-
est in the defeat of bill which pro-
poses to close these places on Sunday?
Why need we be interested in matter
so far removed from our interests?
Why need we care if certain objec-
tionable places should be closed on
Sunday by the strong arm of civil
law? The answer is not far removed,
nor hard to find. 1t is this: An evil is
such every day in the week, and if
any of these places mentioned in the bill
are an infringement of the equal rights
of others they should be closed every
day, not simply on Sunday; and the
same power that can close them one
day in the week can close them every
day. For this reason we cannot favor
a scheme that has upon the face of it
a desire to elevate religious institu-
ton by force of civil law; for If the
Sunday institution will not stand upon
it's own merits, it is not worth the
possession. Another reason is that we
are interested in the preservation of
the rights of all men, and deny the
right of the state to invade the rights
of any one man; and inasmuch as hui
man rights are equal and correlated,
this matter of closed theaters and the
prohibition of base ball playing on
Sunday become the interests of all:
for If we admit the right of the state
to Invade the rights of any one man, in
his laudable pursuit of his happiness,
we give away the whole question and
admit it's right to take away all the
rights of all the people. And so we
protest against the first invasion of
these rights.
But again, if these places and amuse-
ments are so very wicked why ask
simply that they be prohibited on Sun
day? And this question betrays the
secret of the whole thing, for it is not
because of their inherent badness or
immortality, but because of the SUD-
posed sacredness of Sunday; and SO
they ask that a religious institution
shall be exalted by the authority of the
state, thus seeking for religious legis-
lation. But If we admit the right of
the state to legislate upon a single
question of religion, we may yes, we
shall be called to follow it to its ulti-
matum.
Clearly, all men have equal rights:
and with only one limitation. that of
the infringement of the equal rights
of . others, one may exercise these
rights to his hearts content. Then if
L desire to observe the Sunday as a
day of rest and worship, and my neigh
Dor in his pursuit of happiness desires
to run a theater or go ballooning on
Sunday, his course does not in the
least degree infringe my right of rest
and worship; and so long as he does
not infringe theoe equal rights, the
state can of right take no cognizance.
But If L allow the right of the state to
invade the rights of another, 1 admit
the right to take away my rights. In
TACT, l. allow that the state NAV die
tate 10 every man as to his business.
1t may stop the Sunday papers. pro-
hib1t the Sunday mail service, stop all
Sunday travel, repeal the exemption
clause, and then enact law compel
vi all to attenc church On Sunday.
In fact, this is just about the course
that mas been marked out by some of
the friends of the movement. The
story OF the camePs head in the tent
Is worth remembering, and so pro-
test at the first signal of intrusion or
invasion. 1t is more than probable
that we shall learn none too soon thar
eternal vigilance is the price of ill.,
erty.'' ri p puEIpc
st. Paul, March Is.