Evening star., 1911-05-27
Senators Have the Johnston
Bill Under Consideration.
HEPBURN IN OPPOSITION
Objects to Enforced Observance Of
Day of Rest.
SAYS MEASURE Is AMBIGUOUS
Senator Gallinger Favors Law
Similar in Terms for the
Entire Country.

observance Oh SunQdy In the NaJlONdi
Capital was debated in the United States
Senate yesterday in connection with the
Johnston Sunday rest bill. After be-
ing discussed for some time the bill was
laid aside without action to make way
for Senator La Follette's speech on the
Lorimer case.
Senator Hepburn contributed the great
er part Of the remarks on the Sunday
rest bill. being In the main opposed to 1t.
Il have a due regard for the observance
OF the Sabbath. and believe it should be
observed, but I do not believe In legis-
lation compelling one to do It," said Mr.
Hepburn.
This measure is OF more than passing
Importance. I had not thought 1t would
pass without considerable discussion. l
have heard 1t suggested that it was a
delicate question upon which to speak.
do not feel 1t to be such.
"A man who cannot discuss his re-
ligion has none: a man who is afraid to
discuss it has none. do not think this is
an appropriate place to discuss religious
questions. except so far as they may be
relied upon as a basis Of legislation, but
cannot refrain from expressing my re-
gret that it Is proposed in Congress to
deal with the questions involved in this
bill.
IT think I opposed similar bill on a
former occasion, and 1t was charged in
certain places that I was an irreligious
person and that did not believe In or
DERBY conduct on the Sabbath day. There
is no foundation for that charge | have
always been a person OF strong religious
convictions"
Ambiguous In Terms.
Mr.. Hepburn contended that the bill
was ambiguous In it's terms. relating to
works of necessity and to sacred con-
certs." He took occasion to criticise the
cessation of mail deliveries by carriers
Sundays. and declared that there is no
law authorizing cessation OF work by the
carriers. and that Congress ought to call
somebody to account for it,
This bill, 1 believe. does not cover base
BALL" said Mr.. Hepburn. Il wonder why.
l wonder that this august body should
have omitted the mention Of a pastime Of
which many Of It's members are SO fond.
ball or foot ball or golf Golf could hardly
be termed religious exercise Qaughter).
but 1t affords ample opportunity for medi-
tation as the players pass over the golf
links, and it may be that in that way 1t
performs some good, but 1t should have
been mentioned one way or another just
out OF respect for the pastime.
Mr. President. IL it is q great principle
that should be recognized by legislation.
then It should not contain the exceptions
OF cigar stores. ice cream parlors, soda
fountains and places Of that kind.
Should Go the Limit.
If you are going into this question go
into 1t to the limit. and compel the people
to live like the old Puritans OF New Eng
land did, when they were not allowed to
have fire In their churches and when they
had to take their luncheons with them
and eat them In cold sheds or where they
might. If you are going to be erratic In
legislation be erratic according to some
established rule. the rule OF our ances-
tors.
If you are going to recognize the rule
that is recognized, or. at least, l thought
1t was. in all parts of this country. Of
religious freedom and freedom of per-
sonal action SO long as IL violates no
law of the land and no contractual right
Of any one-if you are going to uphold
that kind or religious freedom-you can
not pass this bill.
What authority have we, whence do
we derive authority under the Constitu-
ton to enact legislation that will inter-
fere with the personal action of a citizen
that Is In violation OF no law applicable
to the whole country? Where else in the
United States does such a law as this
exist? Are We going to have one code of
morals in force by virtue of law OF Con-
gress In the District of Columbia and al
low people to go right outside into the
state of Maryland and perform the acts
that they are not allowed to perform In
the District Of Columbia
Senator Ga1linger's 1nterjection.
why not?' asked Senator GaIlinger.
"The senator asks me why not. Are
we going to convert the District of CO.
lumbia, then. into a sanctuary. into q
great church, SO that the citizen must
get out Of the District Of Columbia in or
der that he may enjoy the ordinary and
reasonable freedom Of citizen?' asked
Mr.. Hepburn.
1.-THE senator must know" replied Sen
ator Gallinger, that In a large number
Of the states. though not in all the states.
laws very similar to this are now on the
statute books The senator must know
that In regulating the liquor traffic we
have prohibition in one state and local
option In another state. and I do not
! suppose that that is an anomaly which
would come under the senator's condem-
nation. I see no absurdity or contradic-
tton In legislating for the District of Co.
lumbia on any matter different from what
Maryland or Virginia or any other state
may think It wise to do. So l think the
senator's contention is not well grounded
on that point
would the senator be in favor OF
enacting a law such as this. II we had
the power. that should be applicable to
the whole nation?' asked Mr.. Hepburn.
Gives an Illustration.
II would on this subject" said Mr.. Gal
linger. II do not know that would
take the exact phraseology Of this bill,
but would In general way.
IF the senator will permit me, as an
illustration. two great buildings have re-
Gently gone up in the city of Washing