DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA - NEWSPAPERS - The Washington Post, Monday, February 3, 1896, pg. 4 ----¤¤¤---- This file is part of the DCGenWeb Archives Project: http://www.usgwarchives.net/dc/dcfiles.htm ********************************************* http://www.usgwarchives.net/dc/dcfiles.htm http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm ********************************************* Contributed to The USGenWeb Archives Project by: Jamie M. Perez (jamiemac@flash.net) --------------------------------------------------- SUNDAY AND THE CONSTITUTION. A Criticism of Dr. Sunderland’s Recent Communication Concerning the Day. Editor Post: The prominent position occupied by Dr. Sunderland in the community entitles his candid and yet courteous letter to The Post of January 30, in regard to the observance of Sunday as a holy day, to a respectful and equally courteous reply. Allow me to call his attention to the following extracts from the Constitution of the United States, which I have placed in logical sequence, and which are, I believe, all that the Constitution contains bearing in any way on the subject of religion: Article 10 of the tenth amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Article 9 of the same amendment – The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Article 14 of the fourteenth amendment – No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Now let me quote part of Article 1, of the first amendment, which is the only passage in the Constitution bearing directly on the subject of religion, and which is of an entirely negative, not mandative or permissive, character: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” I respectfully submit that these quotations clearly show that not only Congress has no power under the Constitution to make or enforce laws requiring any kind of religious observance of Sunday or any other day, but that it is strictly prohibited from doing so. Is it not a ridiculously forced assumption that the exception of Sunday from the ten days allowed to the President for returning a bill presented for his signature is a recognition of its religious character? The Constitution appoints Monday as the day of the week on which Congress shall assemble, “unless they shall by law appoint a different day.” Sunday is not excepted from their choice of days, however, which it ought to be if the doctor’s view is correct. It is plain enough that Sunday is, as the doctor remarks, a dies non [Latin: meaning business free day] for the President, exactly as it is for anybody else in secular matters, in accordance with long-established custom. The exception of Sunday, in the case referred to by Dr. Sunderland, has no religious significance whatever, and it shows the weakness of his entire position when he attempts to found an argument upon it. Now, with respect to the suppostitious case with which the worthy doctor opens his argument: “Suppose,” he says, “a man sincerely believes that the old Hebrew law, ‘Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, is binding on himself and on society, and that if the command is obeyed a great good will result to the community, should he not desire to see that good accomplished and avail himself of every lawful means to secure its accomplishment? And if the ‘Christian Sabbath’ can be protected in any measure by a law of Congress, what is the objection to it?” The first objection is that the Constitution, with wise forethought of its founders, has not empowered the Congress to enact such a law and virtually prohibits it, as shown by the above quotation, and which, as it seems to me, ought to be conclusive to every unprejudiced mind. But, supposing Congress were invested with the constitutional authority to pass such a law and enforce it, what guarantee should we have for “the free exercise of religious freedom?” What security should we have for “the privilege and immunities of the United States citizens” referred to in the fourteenth amendment? The Congress of the United States might, by a bare majority vote, drive every citizen to church at the point of a bayonet, or perform any other act of bigotry and tyranny, just as such things have been done by parliamentary bodies in the past, and human nature has not materially changed in such matters since then. The only security we have, except what the Constitution affords, is that no one ecclesiastical body is at present in such ascendancy that it could command a majority; but who can tell how that may be a century hence? Let us jealously guard the Constitution against any encroachments of priestcraft. If your space will permit I should like to add a few lines with reference to the influence which the framers of the Constitution, by their discussion, should have in our interpretation of that instrument. They probably differed in opinion, much as our Catholics and Episcopalians and Presbyterians and Methodists do now, so that point does not count for much. So far as the subject of religion is concerned, the Constitution needs no interpretation of the kind. It is impossible to put two same constructions on it. It speaks plainly and only needs common sense to understand it, if common sense is allowed to be the sole guide. W. E. H. SMART. January 31.