The state must assume an impartial attitude toward the religious and nonreligious beliefs and opinions of all its citizens, for it would be highly improper for the state to recognize the beliefs and restrictive customs of the religionists, and to penalize the opinions and liberal practices of nonreligionists, so long as they conduct themselves as good citizens. All citizens, irrespective of what their religious or nonreligious beliefs may be, are supposed to stand on perfect equality before the law. While we do not agree with the atheist, yet he has the same right to the free exercise of his belief that we have to ours under the civil laws of our country. The clergyman who favors amusements on Sunday but denies proper compensation for the actors, is illogical. If the actor is not committing a crime while he performs, certainly he is not guilty of a crime when he accepts compensation for the services rendered. Does not the clergyman do the same on Sunday? Why is the recompense for the church chorister and the preacher all right on Sunday forenoon, and illegitimate for the actor upon the stage on Sunday afternoon? How can we make fish and fowl out of the same meat, and claim to be consistent? The only possible reason why certain things are wrong on the Sabbath day and not wrong on the week days, is because of religious obligations which we owe to God exclusively. But religious obligations should never be imposed upon any one under duress of civil law. Proper Sabbath observance is a duty we owe to God and to God alone, and is purely a matter of conscience, and not of civil force. Of course, every one ought to observe the Lord's day and obey the divine injunction to keep the Sabbath holy. I have a right to persuade men to comply with this divine obligation; but I have no more right to ask the civil authorities to compel a man to observe the Lord's day than I have to ask that he be forced by civil law to observe the Lord's Supper or the Lord's baptism. Sunday Baseball from a New Angle A HIGHLY esteemed correspondent writes from Brookline, Mass.: "Some weeks ago a petition for baseball games on Sunday was sent up to the authorities of a certain community, and a hearing was granted. A large number of persons attended, among them being a Roman Catholic priest and a Protestant minister. The priest, in speaking in favor of the petition, said he saw no reason why the young men, after attending mass in the morning, should not be allowed an innocent game of ball in the afternoon. "The Protestant minister then asked the priest if he would kindly explain to the com pany present just what the real nature and significance of the mass was. 'I shall be most happy to do so,' was the reply, and he forthwith proceeded to explain the solemnity of the service, setting forth the sufferings and death of Christ upon the cross. When he had finished speaking, the minister thanked the priest for his courteous explanation, and then said: 'After that very sad and solemn scene of the crucifixion of Jesus, did Peter and John go off to a ball game, or did the apostle John take the mother of our Lord out for a joy ride?' "At this question the whole company laughed aloud. But not so the priest. He came over to the minister and said: 'Brother, you have converted me on this matter, and I shall vote against the proposition.'”—The Protestant Review, New York. This is interesting for more than one reason. In the first place, it shows the insincerity of the claim so glibly made that Sunday laws are civil statutes, designed merely to give the tired laborer a weekly day of rest. In the second place, it shows just as clearly that the real ground of the demand for Sunday laws is not the so-called necessity for a regular weekly rest, but the assumed sacred character of the day. Further it shows how easy it will be for Catholics and Protestants to come together upon the question of Sunday enforcement. Protestants have in the past been wont to inveigh against the mass as an idolatrous service, but here "a Protestant minister" appeals to the sacred character of that service as a reason for the maintenance of a Sunday statute, and at his instance a priest becomes an advocate of strict Sunday enforcement. T California State Capitol, Sacramento, Calif. History of Sunday Laws in HE people of California California By John Orr Corliss [The following interesting history of Sunday laws in the Golden State was prepared a year or two ago by Mr. J. O. Corliss, of Glendale, Calif., for the information of members of the legislature of that State at a time when they were being importuned to enact another Sunday law. While the facts are local as to California, the principles brought out are of universal application, and therefore of general interest.- ED.] have had the question of a legal Sunday rest before them more or less prominently since the year 1858, when a law was passed entitled, "An act to provide for the better observance of the Sabbath." The penalty for its violation was fine of fifty dollars, or in default thereof, imprisonment not to exceed one day for each two dollars' fine and costs. The same year a Jewish clothier of Sacramento, by the name of Newman, was arrested for keeping his store open on Sunday. He refused to pay the fine of fifty dollars and was imprisoned, upon which the supreme court was petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, and the man was discharged from imprisonment, on the ground that the law was an invasion of natural rights, and therefore unconstitutional. Supreme Court Decisions The Chief Justice, in rendering a decision in the Newman case, based it on the first and fourth sections of the State constitution: The first section declares: "All men are by nature free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness." The fourth section provides that, "The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed in this State." ren in other vocations? Steam-car and streetcar operatives labor through long and weary Sunday hours, so do the mill and factory hands. There is no Sunday period of rest and no protection for the overworked employees of our daily papers. Do these need no rest or The bare suggestion of these considerations shows the injustice and inequality of such laws." Speaking directly to the case in hand, protection? Justice Terry said: "The question presented in this case is not merely one of expediency or abuse of power; it is a question of usurpation of power. the legislature have the authority to appoint a time of compulsory rest, we would have no right to interfere with it, even if they required a cessation from toil for six days in the week, instead of one. If they possess this power, it is without limit, and may extend to the prohibition of all occupations at all times." In conjunction with Justice Terry's opinion, Justice Burnett added this: "The act violates as much the religious freedom of the Christian as of the Jew. Because the conscientious views of the Christian comyel him to keep Sunday as a Sabbath, he has the right to object, when the legislature invades his freedom of religious worship, and assumes the power to compel him to do that which he has the right to omit if he pleases. The principle is the same, whether the act of the legislature compels us to do that which we wish to do or not to do." A Curious Law In 1895 a Barbers' Sunday law was enacted in California, and under it one Leo Jentzsch was indicted, and on a writ of habeas corpus his case was carried to the supreme court. Justice Henshaw, in the course of his judicial reasoning upon the statute, said: "It is not easy to see where or how this law protects labor from the unjust exactions of capital. A man's constitutional liberty means more than his personal freedom. It means, with many other rights, his right freely to labor, and to own the fruits of his own toil. It is a curious law for the protection of labor which punishes the laborer for working. Yet that is precisely what this law does. The laboring barber, engaged in a most respectable, useful, and cleanly pursuit, is singled out from the thousands of his fellows in employment, and told that, willy-nilly, he shall not work upon holidays and Sundays after twelve o'clock noon. His wishes, tastes, or necessities are not consulted. If he labors, he is a criminal. Such protection to labor carried a little farther would send him from the jail to the poorhouse. "How comes it that the legislative eye was so keen to discern the needs of the oppressed barber, and yet was blind to his toiling breth In conclusion the justice quoted the following opinion from Judge Cooley: "Every one has a right to demand that he be governed by general rules, and a special statute that singles his case out as one to be regulated by a different law from that which is applied to all similar cases would not be legitimate legislation, but an arbitrary mandate unrecognized by the law." The decision in which the full bench concurred was, "The prisoner is discharged." Voice of the People The 1858 law became inoperative, but was not repealed until 1883. It came about in this way: In the political conventions held in the autumn of 1882. the Republicans of California adopted in their platform a plank favoring Sunday laws. The Democrats, however, went to the polls pledged to abolish all legal Sunday restrictions, and for the first time in its history, California elected a Democratic governor, by a majority of 17,517, and also gained control of the legislature. From that time on, successive attempts have been made by a certain element for the revival of enforced Sunday rest. So far was this carried, that in the year 1914 the initiative was invoked in its behalf. Great surprise was manifested. however, when the returns showed the decisive majority of 167,211 against the Sunday law proposition. The people voted wisely on that initiative call; for there can be nothing uncivil in the act of plowing, or sowing grain, or gathering and caring for fruit. or even in selling goods over a counter. People in all walks of life and of every religious degree, engage in such callings. Being accounted perfectly civil on the so-called working days, the question arises as to what can possibly make these ets uncivil when done on Sunday. 'lainly enough it is not the act perormed which constitutes it a misdeneanor, but the day on which the act is lone. Then on what ground has the tate a right to determine the measure of a civil delinquency by the day on which it occurred? On no other basis han that a certain sanctity is attached o the day called Sunday. Such enactnents, then, fall into the line of relizious legislation, something forbidden by the constitution of every American State. The initiative was invoked in the Orezon elections of 1916 to decide whether the people of that State desired a Sunday law to remain on their statute books. The act had been thoroughly tested for some years, and also had the backing of the church constituency, but the returns from the polls of November 7, revealed a majority of 32,163 against the continuance of that statute. Thus the citizens of that fair State were left free to choose, each for himself, as conscience or inclination might direct, whether he would wear the badge of a legalized religion or not. California No Loser by Present Standard In consequence of the past loyalty of California's sons to the principles of equity and justice in government, California is yet without a Sunday law. The State has lost no respect thereby, either; for she has as many church steeples pointing skyward and as many worshipers in her churches, in proportion to her population, as any other State in the American Union. It is libel on the good morals of California's citizens to call them pagans, as has been done publicly by Sunday-law advocates, because they have not consented to oblige themselves to do that which is already their privilege to do, or not to do, as best pleases them. There can be no doubt, in thoughtful minds, that the real reason why the representatives of the people of California have refused to enact Sunday-rest laws, has been because they are opposed, on sound principle, to religious legislation. California, therefore, is no loser by reason of the absence of compulsory Sunday rest. Her numerous church steeples pointing to final rest and her thousands of sincere worshipers, testify to abundant civil and religious loyalty, which could not possibly be enhanced by the passage of any Sunday law that could be framed. The immortal words of Patrick Henry are applicable in a consideration of this kind. He said: "God has given America to be free. . . . In the name of the One who made you, the Saviour who redeemed you, in the name of the millions whose very breath is now hushed, as, in intense expectation, they look up to you for the precious words, You are free!" May the words of this eminent statesman be the watchword and standard, not only in California, but in every other American State and in the Congress of the United States. Want Religion Enforced by Law DR. H. L. BOWLBY says, "The Lord's Day Alliance will seek the enactment of laws calling for the strict enforcement of the Christian Sabbath in the legislatures of at least thirty-five States." He continued his enumeration of a long list of things they were going to prohibit on Sunday, and wound up by saying, according to the Washington Star: "We would have more of the spirit of the Puritans in our observance of the Lord's day. The moral tone of the nation is slipping backward steadily, and the people must return to spiritual things." This shows clearly that the Lord's Day Alliance is seeking to make people spiritual and religious under duress of civil law. But all that religious legislation and a state religion has ever done for the individual in past ages was to make a hypocrite out of him, instead of a Christian. No man has ever been made spiritual by human laws. It is not by civil power but by the Spirit of God that men are made Christians. UEBEC stands very much in need of religious liberty. That is the great need of the whole of Canada today. Bigotry, fanaticism, prejudices, hold sway, in spite of the advance of science and the adoration of reason. And it seems impossible to establish perfect liberty as long as the state and church continue in unholy alliance. The hunger and thirst for religious freedom is the beginning of a demand for political liberty, and on that ground it should be urged by any political party that stands for progress and human rights. We look for the disestablishment of the churches throughout the world. "The union of church and state is an inheritance from pagan Rome. To the ancient Romans the idea of the state was the highest ethical conception, the realization of the highest good, in which all other blessings were included. The religion was, consequently, subordinate to the state. A religion must be a state religion. A god must have the sanctity of the state. "Papal Rome took another view. It taught the universality of religion, and the union of the human family. It pointed to the coming of the kingdom of God, and to that kingdom as the realization of the highest development instead of the state. The Roman pontiffs made the state the slave of the church. "But this reversal of the pagan arrangement was as unsatisfactory to the world as the pattern itself. The turning of the coat did not bring relief from the superstitions and fanaticism of pagan rulers. The blood of martyrs flowed as freely as before. Protestantism then undertook to turn the coat back again. The principle of union of church and state was retained, only the state was again given supremacy. "It is high time the world should rid itself of that ancient pagan idea. Both the church and the state are divine institutions, for the education and training of mankind in the achievements necessary for eternal exaltation and glory. Both must be independent of each other, and work each in its own sphere. Through the state God trains His children in the duties of government, and protects the weak against the strong who may feel inclined to prey upon them. Through the church, if |