Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1910-03-08
Georgetown for the Bill


Association favored the Johnson measure.
He remarked that Georgetown never got
anything that cost money and urged that
as the operation of the Sunday-closing
bill would not cost the federal government
a dollar, the District committee might re-
port it without worrying. One hundred
members of the Georgetown Citizens AS
ISOLATION adopted resolutions favoring the
| bill There We're only three dissenting
votes. He firmly believed. he said, that
the same proportion in favor of the mea-
sure would hold good throughout the Dis
trict could vote be taken on it.
He referred to the fact that just before
he spoke attorneys for the retail grocers
and the retail butchers had urged the
enactment of the bal into law and sug
gested that these were arguments TO
which the committee must pay some at
tention. The enactment of the proposed
legislation would, in his opinion. stop
competition Ill trade on the Sabbath.
Mr.. ring painted a. picture of the
scandalous sort of Sunday observed over
in London. with men Keeling around
drunk. Paris, according 10 Mr.. King, is
slowly improving.
In Interest of Health.
W. K. Cooper, representing the Y. NJ.
c. A. of the Dstrict-a membership of
about .,,O00-urged the committee to re-
port the bill favorably. He did not advo
cate it on religious grounds, he insisted
but in order that there might be one day
or rest in the week for every body.
This BILL he aid, should be entitled
"A bill for the protection Of the pubic
health Any man obliged to labor seven
comes enfeebled citizen. The en-
ployes of retail stores are just much
entitled to a day Of rest by law as are
clerks in the government departments"
Approved by Labor.
p. J. Ryan, chairman of the legislative
committee of the Central Labor Union.
told the District committee that at a
meeting last night the committee had de-
cided to approve the bill if an amend
ment was Inserteo. providing that no
exempted by the bill. should work more
than SIX days week. He mentioned in
this connection that public service cor
poratlons which, Of course, are exempted,
work seven days. This. he thought,
should be prevented by d specific pro-
vision in the bill
Secular League Opposed.
II. c. Kerr opposed the measure. He
said he represented the Secular League
and that the Secular League opposed the
measure on every reasonable ground
Mr.. Kerr insisted that the police regula
tons were now sufficient to enable every
body to rest and recreate on the Sabbath
The enactment of the Johnson bill, he be-
lleved, would simply add another useless
law to the statute books and create a new
class of criminals. Under the enforce
ment of the proposed legislation it was
Mr. kerr's opinion that man with only
flve cents between him and starvat on
couldn't buy loaf of bread on Sunday.
The bill in itself is quippIe," said
Mr.. Kerr. Although it pretends not to
be, it is in fact Sunday observance law.
1t is against the Constitution of the
United States"
| W. w. Prescott, a Seventh Day Ad-
ventist. Vigorously opposed the proposed
| legislation. He was not against the
| proposition Of one day a week as day
of rest, but he objected seriously to
religious legislation, which he claimed
! the Johnson bill attempted to be.
why not" he demanded, compel
| men to sleep regularly and a certain
number of hours? This is class legis-
lation and interferes with personal
rights and personal choice
Simon Wolf Opposed.
| Simon Wolf considered the Johnston
bill fundamentally unsound. There was
no warrant in the Constitution of the
United States, he firmly believed. for any
such legislation as was proposed. He had
given careful and close study to the Con-
stitution and had read the debates of
those who framed it. No such idea was
intended.
Disguise 1t as you may" he said, lit
is religious measure and nothing else
Suppose you named Monday instead of
Sunday as day of rest The Christians
would not be satisfied"
Mr.. Wolf said he had never seen a city
| where Sunday was SO generally observed
as in Washington. 1t was model mu-
/, nicipality. he thought. and any such leg
islation as was proposed he denounced as
absolutely unnecessary.
Mr.. Wolf argued that the proposed law
was not a local but national measure,
and reiterated his statement that the
fathers of the republic were absolutely
against religious legislation of any kind.
Rabbi Simon followed Mr.. Wolf with
arguments along the same line.
Robert s. Copeland, a photographer,
complained that his business would be