JUDGE BENNETT’S answer to the question as to what are the rights of conscience is only an assertion of the doctrine of the majority conscience, in support of which he argues thus:—AMS March 13, 1890, page 81.1

The plaintiffs and their children must not forget that other people have consciences, and are protected in those rights of conscience as well as themselves. Suppose the Board of Education in this school district, and the great body of the patrons of the school, conscientiously believe that the Bible should be read in the public school, as strongly and fully as the plaintiffs believe it should not be? Whose conscientious scruples must yield?AMS March 13, 1890, page 81.2

Without hesitation and without qualification we say the conscience of the majority must give way. Otherwise there is no such thing as rights of conscience. If the majority is to rule in matters of conscience, then the constitutional provisions guarding the rights of conscience are “a mere parchment barrier,” a tantalizing delusion. It is solely to protect the conscientious convictions of the few, or even the solitary individual, that these provisions are made a part of the Constitution. There is no danger that the majority, “the great body,” of the people will infringe or interfere with their own conscientious convictions. “The Constitution did not mean to inquire how many or how few would profess or not profess this or that particular religion. If there be but a single individual in the State who professes a particular faith, he is as much within the sacred protection of the Constitution as if he agreed with the great majority of his fellow-citizens.”—9 Cal. p. 514.AMS March 13, 1890, page 81.3

But not altogether to set up our own view alone in answer to Judge Bennett’s question, we present the following words of Hon. Stanley Matthews: “If it be said that the Protestant conscience requires that the Bible be read by and to Protestant children, and that it is a denial of a right of conscience to forbid it, waiving at present the obvious and conclusive answer that no such right of conscience can require that the Stale shall provide out of the common taxes for its gratification, it is enough to say that Catholics then, too, have the same right to have their children taught religion according to their views—not out of the Douay Bible if they do not consider that sufficient, but—by catechism and in the celebration of the mass, if they choose to insist; that the Jews have the same right to have their religion taught in the common schools—not from the English version of the Old Testament, but—according to the practice of their synagogues; and infidels have the same right to have their children taught deism, or pantheism, or positivism.AMS March 13, 1890, page 81.4

“They have no right to insist upon Protestant practices at the public expense, or in public buildings, or to turn public schools into seminaries for the dissemination of Protestant ideas. They can claim nothing on the score of conscience which they cannot equally concede to all others. It is not a question of majorities or minorities; for if the conscience of the majority is to be the standard, then there is no such thing as a right of conscience at all. It is against the predominance and power of majorities that the rights of conscience are protected, and have need to be.”AMS March 13, 1890, page 81.5

It is most likely that the people of the United States think they have the rights of conscience guaranteed to them—and in fact they have by their Constitution—but they seem not to realize how easy it is for a court by a few words to sweep away all constitutional guaranties. It is likely that the people of Wisconsin think their rights of conscience are secure; but if Judge Bennett’s decision expresses the law in that State they have no rights of conscience at all. It may be indeed that the Protestants of the city of Edgerton feel that they are secure, even under this decision, because they are the majority, and the decision says the majority conscience must rule. But if this were made a State question, these same Protestants would probably be surprised to know that the Roman Catholics are more than one and a half times as numerous as the Protestants in that State; and if the Roman Catholics should assert the majority-conscience doctrine it is certain that the Protestants would very soon discover that the constitutional safeguards themselves, rather than Protestant dogmas, need to be guarded by the courts. Let the Protestants of Wisconsin protest against this sweeping away of these rights of conscience.AMS March 13, 1890, page 81.6

One of the arguments made by counsel for the plaintiffs was, that the Constitution was adopted to “insure domestic tranquillity,” and that the reading of the Bible in the public schools “tends to create discord,” and that therefore the reading of the Bible in the public schools is unconstitutional! It must be confessed that this argument is more ingenious than profound; but the Judge’s answer to it is far worse than the argument. The answer does not possess even the merit of ingenuity. The Court’s reply was this:—AMS March 13, 1890, page 82.1

It is claimed by both parties to this litigation, that the New Testament at least contains the gospel of peace. This was declared by the angel of the Lord at the birth of the Saviour. We read in Luke, ch. 2, verses 13, 14, “And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” ... If the reading of the Bible concerning the words and wonderful works of the Divine Being whose advent into the world was so beautifully, grandly, and sublimely announced by the angel of the Lord, would produce dissension and discontent, and not peace on earth and good will toward men, then it would follow that the “angel of the Lord” was mistaken.AMS March 13, 1890, page 82.2

Indeed, and indeed!! And therefore that the reputation of the angel of the Lord for truth and veracity may not suffer in the community about Edgerton, Wisconsin, the State Circuit Court, Judge Bennet [sic.] presiding, must needs come to the rescue and give him a certificate of good character!AMS March 13, 1890, page 82.3

Let us carry the Judge’s argument a little further. Let us put it to the test of the Scripture, and see how it will work. Thus: “The New Testament at least contains the gospel of peace. This was declared by the angel of the Lord at the birth of the Saviour. We read in Luke ch. 2, verses 13, 14, ‘And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace, good will toward men.’” Now in the same book of Luke we read ch. 12, verses 51-53, the words of the Saviour himself whose advent was so grandly announced, saying: “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: for from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother-in-law-against her daughter-in-law and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”AMS March 13, 1890, page 82.4

Now the rest of the Judge’s argument comes in: If the coming of the Divine Being whose advent into the world was so beautifully, grandly, and sublimely announced by the angel of the Lord, would produce dissension “and division” and not peace, then it would follow that the “angel of the Lord was mistaken.”AMS March 13, 1890, page 82.5

Well, Judge, really now how is it? Was the angel of the Lord mistaken or was he not? Was the angel of the Lord mistaken or was the Lord himself mistaken?AMS March 13, 1890, page 82.6

Again: the plaintiffs might have appealed the case to the Supreme Court, and upon the strength of Judge Bennett’s argument might have pleaded thus: The Circuit Court has decided that we have “created discord, and ought not to be heard” (page 54). Now the Saviour said he came to send division and discord on the earth. If, then, there be not division and discord, it will follow that the Saviour was mistaken. Therefore the decision must be in our favor, or else the Supreme Court will be involved in the serious matter of sanctioning a grave reflection upon the character of the Lord.AMS March 13, 1890, page 82.7

If Judge Bennett’s argument in defense of the angel is good, this argument would be much better in defense of the Lord, as he is “so much better than the angels,” as to have “obtained a more excellent name than they.” Hebrews 1:4.AMS March 13, 1890, page 82.8

We do not present this seeming conflict in the Scriptures to sanction for a moment any such idea as that either the angel or the Lord was mistaken, for they both told the truth: we simply present this the more fully to show what is already apparent, that in assuming the role of defender of the angels, and attempting to expound Scripture from the bench, Judge Bennett entered into a field where he had no business to go. The character of the angels of the Lord needs no defense from the Circuit Court of Wisconsin.AMS March 13, 1890, page 82.9

In closing his decision the Judge said:—AMS March 13, 1890, page 82.10

The Bible remains and it would seem like turning a good, true, and ever faithful friend and counselor out of doors, to exclude it from the public schools of the State.AMS March 13, 1890, page 82.11

This observation confirms what is apparent throughout the whole decision, that Judge Bennett assumed the position of an advocate instead of retaining that of a judge. He sat there as an advocate to plead for his “ever faithful friend,” and at all hazards to keep him where he was, instead of sitting as a just judge to decide fairly whether, in the first place that “faithful friend” ought to have been where he was.AMS March 13, 1890, page 82.12

To us the Bible is as much of an ever faithful friend and counselor, as it can be we think to Judge Bennett or anybody else; and we want to see it become the same to everybody else as far as possible. But we know that friendship is not very readily formed nor very firmly cemented, nor are the admonitions of a counselor very respectfully received, by being forced upon people at their expense and against their will, as has been done with the Bible in the public schools of Wisconsin.AMS March 13, 1890, page 82.13

A. T. J.

“Questions and Answers” The American Sentinel 5, 11, pp. 83, 84.

ATJ

THE, American Sunday-law Union is evidently affrighted at the influence of the counter-petition to their work. This we gather from the fact that the secretary is sending out a circular letter to some of those who have signed the counter-petition. There is no danger of his sending out this letter to each individual who has signed it, because there are more than six hundred thousand of them, and the one-cent postage alone amounting to over six-thousand dollars, would bankrupt the Union in a little while. And if the Union should be able indeed to send it to each individual, there would then be no danger; because the signers of this petition are signers indeed—they signed it with their own hands—and the signatures are not names of people who never saw the petition, never heard it read, and in some cases, never heard of it. It is possible of course that there may be a few out of the whole number—one in ten thousand perhaps—who might have signed without reading carefully enough; but there are not enough of them to pay the Union for its efforts to find them out.AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.1

We have received one of the circulars. It asks a number of questions to those who signed the counter-petition. We signed the counter-petition. Therefore we entitled to answer the questions now proceed to do.AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.2

Washington, D. C., December 31, 1889.

Your name appears on a petition to Congress opposing legislation on “Sabbath observance,” which is as follows:—AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.3

We, the undersigned, admit residents of the United States 21 years of age or more, hereby respectfully but earnestly petition your honorable body not to pass any bill in regard to the observance of the Sabbath or Lord’s Day, or any other religious or ecclesiastical institution or rite; nor to favor in any way the adoption of any resolution for the amendment of the national Constitution that would in any way give preference to the principles of any one religion above another, or that will in any way sanction legislation upon the subject of religion, but that the total separation between religion and the State, assured by our national Constitution as it now is, may forever remain as our fathers established it.AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.4

This petition is verbally claimed to be in opposition to another petition (given below), some of whose signers declare they could also sign the petition you have indorsed if it is to be understood exactly as it reads. The petition which you have signed refers to a “bill” and also to an “amendment,” two distinct measures that were before the last Congress, each of which has many subordinate propositions, and to some other matters not included in either measure. We are, therefore, in doubt whether you are against some one of the many things named in the petition, or against them all. Hence these inquiries:—AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.5

First. You ask Congress “not to pass any bill in regard to the observance of the Sabbath or Lord’s day, or any other religious or ecclesiastical institution or rite.” Do you wish to be considered as also opposed to the following petition for a civil Sunday law, which only asks Congress to give those under its jurisdiction the same protection against Sunday toil and traffic and turmoil as is generally enjoyed by those who are under the jurisdiction of State Legislatures?AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.6

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States: The undersigned, adult residents of the United States, twenty-one years of age or more, hereby earnestly petition your honorable body to pass a bill, forbidding, in the United States Mail and Military service, and in Interstate commerce, and in the District of Columbia and the Territories, all Sunday traffic and work, except works of real necessity and mercy, and such private work by those who observe another day as will neither interfere with the general rest nor with public worship.AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.7

Are you opposed to this petition for a civil rest day for those under the jurisdiction of Congress?AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.8

ANSWER; Yes, decidedly, and for several reasons.AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.9

(1.) It is not “a civil rest day” that is wanted by the framers and circulators of the petition; it is a falsehood to say that it is; and we will not sanction any falsehood by our signature nor any other way if we know it.AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.10

(2) “This petition” is not the one upon which the legislation was framed which is now pending in Congress, and which we are asked to indorse by this change of signature. Here is the petition upon which and to satisfy which, were framed the two Sunday bills now before Congress: words left out of the above petition are in italics:—AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.11

The undersigned organizations and adult residents (21 years of age or more,) of the United States, hereby earnestly petition your honorable body to pass a bill, forbidding in the United States Mail and Military service, and in Interstate commerce, and in the District of Columbia and the Territories, all Sunday traffic and work except works of religion and works of real necessity and mercy, and such private work by those who religiously and regularly observe another day of the week by abstaining from labor and business as will neither interfere with the general rest nor with public worship.AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.12

This being the petition upon which the pending Sunday legislation was framed it is a deception and a snare for you to try to get indorsements of that legislation by sending out for signatures a petition which is most materially different from the one upon which that legislation was framed. It is likewise a deception to call that a “civil rest day” which is to be enforced by laws framed in accordance with petitions for a religious rest day, and which do in themselves propose to enforce a religious rest day.AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.13

Therefore being opposed both to Sunday laws and to deception, we are doubly opposed to “this petition for a civil rest day.”AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.14

Second. The above petition, you will observe, makes no reference to the original Blair Sunday-rest bill, which may be what you wished to oppose. If so, do you object also to the new Blair Sunday-rest bill of the present Congress?AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.15

ANSWER: Yes, we do “observe” it; And, yes we do “object also to the new Blair Sunday-rest bill of the present Congress,” and to every other Sunday-rest bill that ever has been or that ever may be framed.AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.16

Third. Do you object to giving Sunday rest to the Soldiers and Marines in the United States Army and Navy—thus completing and making permanent by law what the President has done in this matter by proclamation?AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.17

ANSWER: We do not object to giving Sunday rest, or any other rest, to the soldiers and marines in the United States Army and Navy. We do decidedly object to “completing and making permanent by law what the President has done in this matter by proclamation.” Such is not needed by law. The President being Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, his command is law there; and this plea for law to complete that which is already law, is only another deceitful trick in the great scheme by which it is hoped to have Sunday sacredness recognized and established by national law.AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.18

Fourth. Do you object to giving post-office employees the same protection against needless Sunday work that is given to other Government employees and to employees generally, thus completing and making permanent by law what the Postmaster-General has done in this matter?AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.19

ANSWER: The same answer, in effect, as to question three.AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.20

Fifth. Do you object to making permanent by law, the reductions of Sunday work recently made by many railroad corporations, and completing these reforms by removing what railroad presidents declare to be the chief obstacle to complete suspension of Sunday trains, namely, competition, by stopping all Sunday work in interstate commerce that is not work of necessity or mercy?AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.21

ANSWER: Yes, (1) for the same reason as given in answer to questions three and four; and (2) because we are opposed to the Government’s establishing a monoply in Sunday observance by “removing competition” or by any other means.AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.22

Sixth. Do you object to giving a rest day to the people of the District of Columbia, whose Commissioners have recently said that it has no valid Sunday law, not even enough to stop servile labor on that day; which is, therefore, to be classified with France and California as the only parts of the civilized world having no Sunday law? Do you object to the enactment by Congress of as good a Sunday-rest law for the Capital as can be found in the statutes of any State, in accordance with the desire of the Commissioners, approved by the President?AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.23

ANSWER: Yes to the first question, because the people of the District of Columbia have a rest day, and they observe it so well that the American Sabbath Union himself says that of all the cities in the United States, in Washington city there is the best Sunday observance. The District of Columbia is appropriately “classed” with California, because, by the same authority we know that in California without Sunday laws there is better observance of Sunday than in states which do have Sunday laws, and better observance of it than there was in the same State when it had Sunday laws. And neither the District of Columbia nor California need any laws to “give” them that which they al-ready have.AMS March 13, 1890, page 83.24

To the second because “as good a Sunday-rest law as can be found in the statutes of any State” is simply good for nothing, or worse. And neither “the desire of the Commissioners” nor the approval of the President can make that good which is in itself bad. We say this out of the full respect which every citizen of the United States owes to the chief magistrate of the greatest nation the world has ever seen.AMS March 13, 1890, page 84.1

Seventh. Or is it the enforcement by law of a religious observance of Sunday that you oppose?AMS March 13, 1890, page 84.2

ANSWER: Yes, it is that and more. It is the enforcement by law of any kind of observance of Sunday as such that ever could be named under the sun—to the worship of which Sunday observance owes its origin.AMS March 13, 1890, page 84.3

Eighth. Are you opposed to a purely civil law stopping toil and traffic and turmoil on the first day of the week, that all the people may have OPPORTUNITY for rest and home fellowships, and those who choose, for moral culture?AMS March 13, 1890, page 84.4

ANSWER: All the people freely have all that already. And when it is proposed to enact a law to give to people that which they already freely have, that is the first step toward taking away from them the free exercise and enjoyment of that which they already freely have.AMS March 13, 1890, page 84.5

The circular closes with a “memorial” to Congress to be “undersigned by those who indorsed the petition referred to in the first paragraph”—the counter-petition. But as not a solitary soul ever indorsed the counter-petition, but all signed it upon its face with their own hands, this memorial is null and void—as every Sunday law by right is and always was.AMS March 13, 1890, page 84.6

A. T. J.

March 6, 1890

March 20, 1890