|
In
the Senate of the United States, January 19, 1829.
Mr. Johnson, of Kentucky, made the following report:
The Committee, to whom were referred the several
petitions on the subject of Mails on the Sabbath, or
the first day of the week, report—
That some respite is required from the ordinary
vocations of life, is an established principle,
sanctioned by the usages of all nations, whether
Christian or Pagan. One day in seven has also been
determined upon as the proportion of time; and in
conformity with the wishes of the great majority of
citizens of this country, the first day of the week,
commonly called Sunday, has been set apart to that
object. The principle has received the sanction of
the national legislature, so far as to admit a
suspension of all public business on that day,
except in cases of absolute necessity, or of great
public utility. This principle the committee would
not wish to disturb. If kept within its legitimate
sphere of action, no injury can result from its
observance. It should, however, be kept in mind,
that the proper object of government is to protect
all persons in the enjoyment of their religious as
well as civil rights, and not to determine for any
whether they shall esteem one day above another, or
esteem all days alike holy.
We
are aware that a variety of sentiment exists among
the good citizens of this nation on the subject of
the Sabbath day; and our government is designed for
the protection of one as much as for another.
<<94>>
The Jews, who in this country are as free as
Christians, and entitled to the same protection from
the laws, derive their obligation to keep the
Sabbath day from the fourth commandment of their
decalogue, and in conformity with that injunction,
pay religious homage to the seventh day of the week,
which we call Saturday. One denomination of
Christians among us, justly celebrated for their
piety, and certainly as good Christians as any other
class, agree with the Jews in the moral obligation
of the Sabbath, and observe the same day; there
are, also, many Christians among us who derive their
obligation to observe the Sabbath from the decalogue, but regard the Jewish Sabbath as
abrogated. From the example of the Apostles of
Christ, they have chosen the first day of the week,
instead of that day set apart in the decalogue, for
their religious devotions. They have generally
regarded the observance of the day as a devotional
exercise, and would not more readily enforce it on
others than they would enforce secret prayer or
meditation.
Urging the fact that neither the Lord nor his
disciples, though often censured by their accusers
for a violation of the Sabbath, ever enjoined its
observance, they regarded it as a subject on which
every person should be fully persuaded in his own
mind, and not coerce others to act upon his
persuasion. Many Christians again differ from these,
professing to derive their obligation to observe the
Sabbath from the fourth commandment of the Jewish
decalogue, and bring the example of the Apostles,
who appear to have held their public meetings for
worship on the first day of the week, as authority
for so far changing the decalogue as to substitute
that day for the seventh.
The Jewish government was a theocracy, which
enforced religious observances; and though the
committee would hope that no portion of the citizens
of our country would willingly introduce a system of
religious coercion in our civil institutions, the
example of other nations should admonish us to watch
carefully against its earliest indication. With
these different views the committee are of opinion
that Congress cannot interfere. It is not the
legitimate province of the legislature to determine
what religion is true or what false. Our government
is a civil, and not a religious institution. Our
constitution recognises in every person the right to
choose his own religion, and to enjoy it freely
without molestation. Whatever may be the religious
sentiments of citizens, and however variant, they
are alike entitled to protection from the
government, so long as they do not invade the rights
of others.
The transportation of the mail on the first day of
the week, it is believed, does not interfere with
the rights of conscience. The petitioners
<<95>>for
its discontinuance appear to be actuated from a
religious zeal, which may be commendable if confined
to its proper sphere; but they assume a position
better suited to an ecclesiastical than a civil
institution. They appear in many instances to lay it
down as an axiom that the practice is a violation of
the law of God. Should Congress, in their
legislative capacity, adopt that sentiment, it would
establish the principle that the legislature is a
proper tribunal to determine what are the laws of
God. It would involve a legislative decision in a
religious controversy; and in a point in which good
citizens may honestly differ in opinion without
disturbing the peace of society, or endangering its
liberties. If this principle is once introduced, it
will be impossible to define its bounds. Among all
the religious persecutions with which almost every
page of modern history is stained, no victim ever
suffered but for the violation of what government
denominated the law of God. To prevent a similar
train of evils in this country, the constitution has
wisely withheld from our government the power of
defending the divine law. It is a right reserved for
each citizen; and while he respects the equal rights
of others he cannot be held amenable to any human
tribunal for his conclusions.
Extensive religious combinations to effect a
political object are, in the opinion of the
committee, always dangerous. The first effort of the
kind calls for the establishment of a principle
which, in the opinion of the committee, would lay
the foundation for dangerous innovation upon the
spirit of the constitution and upon the religious
rights of the citizens. If admitted, it may be
justly apprehended that the future measures of
government will be strongly marked, if not
eventually controlled, by the same influence. All
religious despotism commences by combination and
influence, and when that influence begins to operate
upon the political institutions of our country, the
civil power soon bends under it, and the catastrophe
of other nations furnishes an awful warning of the
consequence.
Under the present regulations of the post office
department, the rights of conscience are not
invaded. Every agent enters voluntarily, and it is
presumed conscientiously, into the discharge of his
duties, without intermeddling with the conscience of
another. Post offices are so regulated as that but a
small proportion of the first day of the week is
required to be occupied in official business. In the
transportation of the mail on that day no one agent
is employed many hours. Religious persons enter into
the business without violating their own
consciences, or imposing any restraints upon others.
Passengers in the mail stages are free to rest
during the first day of the week, or to pursue
<<96>>their journeys at their own pleasure. While
the mail is transported on Saturday, the Jew and the Sabbatarian may abstain from any agency in carrying
it, from conscientious scruples. While it is
transported on the first day of the week, another
class may abstain from the same religious scruples.
The obligation of government is the same to both of
these classes, and the committee can discover no
principle on which the claims of one should be more
respected than those of the other, unless it should
be admitted that the consciences of the minority are
less sacred than those of the majority.
It
is the opinion of the committee that the subject
should be regarded simply as a question of
expediency, irrespective of its religious bearing.
In this light it has hitherto been considered.
Congress has never legislated upon the subject. It
rests, as it has ever done, in the legal discretion
of the postmaster-general, under the repeated
refusal of Congress to discontinue the Sabbath
mails. His knowledge and judgment in all the
concerns of that department will not be questioned.
His intense labours and assiduity have resulted in
the highest improvement of every branch of his
department. It is practised only on the great
leading mail routes, and such others as are
necessary to maintain their connexions. To prevent
this, would in the opinion of the committee, be
productive of immense injury, both in its
commercial, political, and in its moral bearings.
The various departments of government require
frequently in peace, always in war, the speediest
intercourse with the remotest parts of the country;
and one important object of the mail establishment
is to furnish the greatest and most economical
facilities for such intercourse. The delay of the
mails one day in seven would require the employment
of special expresses at great expense, and sometimes
with great uncertainty. The commercial,
manufacturing, and agricultural interests of our
country are so intimately connected as to require a
constant and the most expeditious correspondence
betwixt all our seaports, and betwixt them and the
most interior settlements. The delay of mails during
Sunday would give occasion to the employment of
private expresses to such an amount that probably
ten riders would be employed where one mail stage is
now running on that day; thus diverting the revenue
of that department into another channel, and sinking
the establishment into a state of pusillanimity
incompatible with the dignity of the government of
which it is a department.
Passengers in the mail stages, if the mails are not
permitted to proceed on Sunday, will be expected to
spend that day at a tavern upon the road, generally
under circumstances not friendly to devotion, and at
an expense which many are but poorly able
<<97>>to
encounter. To obviate these difficulties many will
employ extra carriages for their conveyance, and
become the bearers of correspondence, as more
expeditious than the mail. The stage proprietors
will themselves often furnish the travellers with
these means of conveyance, so that the effect will
ultimately be only to stop the mail, while the
vehicle which conveys it will continue, and its
passengers become the special messengers for
conveying a considerable portion of what would
otherwise constitute the contents of the mail. Nor
can the committee discover when the system could
consistently end.
If
the observance or a holy day become incorporated in
our institutions, shall we not forbid the movement
of an army, prohibit an assault in time of war, and
lay an injunction upon our naval officers to lie in
the wind while upon the ocean on that day?
Consistency would seem to require it. Nor is it
certain that we should stop here. If the principle
is once established that religion or religious
observances shall be interwoven with our legislative
acts, we must pursue it to its ultimatum.
We
shall, if consistent, provide for the erection of
edifices for the worship of the Creator, and for the
support of Christian ministers, if we believe such
measures will promote the interests of Christianity.
It is the settled conviction or the committee that
the only method of avoiding these consequences, with
their attendant train of evils, is to adhere
strictly to the spirit of the constitution, which
regards the general government in no other light
than that of a civil institution, wholly destitute
of religious authority.
What other nations call religious toleration we call
religious rights. They are not exercised in virtue
of governmental indulgence, but as rights, of which
government cannot deprive any portion of citizens,
however small. Despotic power may invade those
rights, but justice still confirms them. Let the
national legislature once perform an act which
involves the decision of a religious controversy,
and it will have passed its legitimate bounds. The
precedent will then be established, and the
foundation laid for that usurpation of the Divine
prerogative in this country, which has been the
desolating scourge to the fairest portions of the
world.
Our constitution recognises no other power than that
of persuasion for enforcing religious observances.
Let the professors of Christianity recommend their
religion by deeds of benevolence—by Christian
meekness—by love of temperance and holiness. Let
them combine their efforts to instruct the ignorant,
to relieve the widow and the orphan, to promulgate
to the world the gospel of their Saviour,
recommending its precepts by their habitual example;
government will find its legitimate object in
protecting them. It cannot oppose them,
<<98>>and
they will not need its aid. Their moral influence
will then do infinitely more to advance the true
interests of religion than any measures they may
call on Congress to enact.
The petitioners do not complain of any infringement
upon their own rights. They enjoy all that
Christians ought to ask at the hand of any
government—protection from all molestation in the
exercise of their religious sentiments.
Resolved, That the committee be discharged from the
further consideration of the subject. |
