Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-03-21
THE PROPOSED SUNDAY LAW
Rev Dr. Elliott Explains Why, It Il
Urged
Congress Simply Asked to Revise O
Law Long In Force-The Need
for such Liquidation.

| to the proposed Sunday law which was
| considered by the Commissioners Of the
District of Columbia on Wednesday last?
First-What Is the proposed law?
1t reads as follows:
A bill to further protect the first day OF
| the week as q day Of rest in the District of
| Columbia.
| Be it enacted by the Senate and House Of
Representatives Of the United States Of
| America in Congress assembled, that 1t
shall not be lawful for any person to keep
open any place of business or maintain a
| stand for the sale of any article or articles
of profit during Sunday, excepting apothe-
carries, for the dispensing of medicines. and
undertakers for the purpose Of providing
| for the dead, or others for the purposes Of
charity or necessity: nor shall any public
other kind of playing sports pastimes or
diversions disturbing the peace and quiet
| Of the day be practiced by any person or
persons within the District of Columbia on
Sunday; nor shall any building operations
| or work upon railroad construction be law
full upon said day; and for any violation of
this act the person offending SHALL for
each offense, be liable to a fine of not less
than $ nor more than SO. and in the case
OF corporations there shall be a like fine
for every person employed in violation Of
this act laid upon the corporation Offend
ing.
That 1t shall be a sufficient defense to a
prosecution for servile labor on the first
day of the week that the defendant uni
tormly keeps another day of the week as a
day of rest, and that the labor complained
Of was done in such a manner as not to
| interrupt or disturb other persons in OBJ
serving the first day of the week as a day
of rest
At the hearing on Wednesday, objection
having been made to the words cor main
tain stand" it was agreed by the un-
dersigned that those words should be
stricken out at the discretion Of the Com
m!ssioners 1t was also agreed that for
| the words place of business" there should.
be substituted as less ambiguous the word
store" One of the honorable Commits
sicners pointed out that the words place
| of business might be construed to include
railroad offices and other like offices, and
though no such construction seems to have
| been put upon that portion of the law when
enforced in this city from 1884 to 1885, the
objection prevailed.
Not a New Law.
Second-How much of the law quoted
above is new in the District?
To this the reply is that the first half Of
| the proposed law is almost word for word
| an ordinance of the corporation Of Wash
iDgton. which, from 1864 to 1886. was en-
| forced in this city. At the latter date. in
| the case in re Stamford, it was declared
invalid, because 1t had not received the
mayors signature. This ordinance hav-
| ing thus dropped out of its place Congress
is asked to replace 1t.
Special attention is called to the fact that
| 1t is this ordinance of the corporation of
! Washington, declared invalid by the courts
| to which Congress is now asked to give
validity. The statement has several times
| apes red that it is the Maryland act of
! l725 which Congress is asked to re-enact
or to amend SO that it can be enforced
| This is a mistake. 1t is true that the
| Maryland act cannot be enforced. At first
| the forfeit prescribed was two hundred
| pounds of tobacco In 1880 the Maryland
| assembly enacted that the forfeit shall
be paid and discharged in tobacco at the
! rate of twelve shllings and siXpence per
| hundred, and in specie. rating Spanish dol
| lars at seven shiIl:ngs and sixpence, and
| gold and other silver in proportion or in
! new bills at the passing value at the el &C.
ton of the person charged therewith"
| Here again the forfeit is such as to make
| the law imperative. Nor does the writer
know OF any one among those whom he
rerresents who wishes to make the Mary
| land act operative Not the Maryland act
| of 1925. but the ordinance of the corpora
| ton of Washington OF 1854 is what the
! foregoing bill contains and seeks to replace
| in the legislation for the District. And the
| bill q. Ell above. from its beginning down
| to the words Charity and necessity" is
Wcrd fer word the corporation ordinance of
| 1S4-2xcspt for the addition of the words
| 'or maintain a stand and the change Of
sabbath" into Sunday" The latter
change IS made in order that the language
| of the bill may conform to the language of
the Constitution of the United States, ar
| ticle l. section l. subsection 9.
Reasons for It,
Some reasons for asking Congress to give
validity to this old ordinance are as fol-
lows: Under its protection the District for
some twenty years enjoyed on the whole
| great quietness on Sunday.
| 1t Is law already known and familiar, if
no. IN Its terms, at least. by practical COM
pliance with 1t.
| 1t has the DreStige Of pr;or OF
enactment. and caa repel the charge of
untried and uncertain legislation.
This law owes Its existence to the corpor-
alton of the city of Washington a corpor-
| alton elected by the sUffrages of the peo-
pie, and expressing in legislation what
! they had reason to believe to be the will
| of the people.
| 1t is 10. be clearly understood that these
reasons apply only to the first half of the
Dill. The remainder Of the bill is new in
| the District.
| Third. What constituency does this bill
| represent: 1t has beer said that the writer
| in appearing for this bill represents only
| the Churchman'S League. But he has the
responsibility of appearing for a much
| larger constituency than that body of very
influential laymen and of clergymen 1t is
| true that the movement began in the
| league, and on the statement that in the
a.: erce of any law whatever forbidding
| the opening of stores on Sunday many
were being opened But when the commit
| tee appoil ted by the league reported sub
stantially the bill given above the COM
! r1ittee was ordered to request pastors of
churches of every name in the city to meet
| at Wizards Hall on December }, 1895, each
pastor bringing two members of his con-
g:'egation, and then consider the suggested
! law.
| the meeting was representative of the
churches generally, though not universally
1t cordially Endorsed what the league had
| proposed, and made few additions which
| are incorporated in this Senate bill.
| The presiding officer. Judge Bradley, was
charged with the appointment of a COM
| mittee to present the bill to Congress Be-
fore the committee had acted. the Morse
bill was presented. When the defeat of the
| Morse bill seemed evident. the bill as
| proposed at the Willard Hall meeting was
| presented in the Senate. 1t is a mistake to
| call 1t exclusively a ministers bill
| Need for Legislation.
Fourth. What is the need for the pro-
| posed legislation? Should every store in
the city of Washington he open tomorrow
| for the sale of articles there is no law
| bich could close any of them, EXCEPT
! stores for the sale of liquor. If it be said
| that public opinion or self-restraint will
| suffice without law to restrain such OPEN
| ing, the reply is that general if not uni
versal experience in other cities shows
| that such moral considerations do not suf-