Acquitted.

JOHN A. DODD.

Mr. Dodd was arrested in Queen Anne county, September 10, 1893, and brought before a justice of the peace the following day. The constable was the complaining witness. He had watched the defendant, and saw him at work at a boat landing, and made the charge before the justice, who without hearing the defendant, sentenced him to pay a fine of five dollars and costs. The justice said to the defendant: "You know the result of a former trial of some of your brethren. I impose the same fine and costs." The case was appealed to the Circuit Court, and tried at the November term. Mr. Dodd was acquitted. The "labor" done on Sunday by Mr. Dodd was holding horses for Mr. C. O. Ford, while he loaded the window sashes at the steamboat landing. The action of the constable and justice evidently was prompted by religious prejudice.

JOSEPH WARRAM.

Mr. Warram was arrested in 1893 for Sunday work, and brought before the justice of the peace, where he waived examination, appealing to the Circuit Court. This being irregular, the case was dis

missed.

A confessed inquisitor and betrayer.

Case dismissed.

Only a few minutes'

work.

EDGAR PRICE.

Mr. Price, of Millington, Kent county, was arrested May 22, 1893, for working in his barn on Sunday, May 21, about one mile from the town, and a considerable distance from any public road. The affidavit against him was made by a neighbor who came to his place to see what he was doing. This neighbor took supper with Mr. Price, and pretended friendship. He admitted publicly and otherwise that his church leaders put him up to betray Mr. Price.

Mr. Price waived hearing before the justice of the peace. He was indicted by the grand jury in October, and his case docketed for trial May, 1894, at Chestertown, at which time effort was made by the State to have him confess to doing wrong, and pay his fine; but without effect. The court finally dismissed the case, on the ground that the justice of the peace had exclusive jurisdiction in such cases, except on appeal.

H. O. BULLEN AND A. J. HOWARD.

Mr. Bullen and Mr. Howard were arrested Monday, May 20, 1894, at Shady Side, charged with doing "bodily labor on the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday." The work done by Mr. Howard was that of picking up a few scattered stakes about a churchyard, in the morning before breakfast, the entire time occupied in doing this being about two or three minutes. Mr. Bullen was out in his garden inspecting it on Sunday, the witness admitting that he did only about five minutes' work; but that was sufficient. At the same

time, axes were to be heard all around the neighborhood. Even their

informants were caring for their boats, bailing out water, drying sails, etc., preparing to amuse themselves on this same Lord's day, commonly called Sunday."

While on their way to the trial, the Methodist Sunday-school superintendent met the defendants, and stated that he would give one hundred dollars to get them both in the penitentiary for life, and that if they got justice, there's where they would go. They waived examination before the justice, and gave bail in the sum of one hundred dollars each for their appearance at court, October 3, 1894, at Annapolis. On appeal, the cases were dismissed for the same reasons given in the Price case.

An intolerant Method

ist Sundayschool super

intendent.

A "Watchman's Association was formed at Shady Side, to watch seventh-day observers on Sunday, with the avowed intention of An inquisitorial getting them all in jail, or driving them from the country. Many society. threats were made, and warnings given them to leave the country. The door and transom of their meeting-house at this place were broken, and their worship was disturbed.

R. R. WHALEY.

R. R. Whaley, treasurer of the Seventh-day Adventist church at Church Hill, Queen Anne county, a carpenter by trade, was engaged to build a meeting-house for his society. On Sunday morning, June 3, 1894, he worked in his garden. A neighbor became offended at the sight, though before making a profession of religion Mr. Whaley had often worked in his garden on Sunday, and sometimes cut enough wood on that day to last the rest of the week, without protest. Evidently, therefore, Mr. Whaley's real crime was in becoming an Adventist. This neighbor hunted around town for an officer to have Mr. Whaley arrested immediately. To the credit of one officer, be it said, he refused to have anything to do with the matter. But four days later, June 7, Mr. Whaley was arrested, and fined five dollars and costs. The case was appealed to the Circuit Court.

Mr. Whaley was again arrested, June 18, for chopping wood on Sunday, June 10 and 17. The witnesses against him were watching to see if he would work. It was admitted on all sides that others in the community, not Seventh-day Adventists, chopped wood and did various kinds of work on Sunday, and were not molested or complained of. In fact, a near neighbor of Mr. Whaley's was chopping wood on Sunday at the same time he was, but without protest. Mr. Whaley was convicted, and twice imprisoned for one month.

W. G. CURLETT.

Mr. Curlett was arrested June 15, 1894, at Church Hill, Queen Anne county, for working in his garden on Sunday, June 3 and 10. His home is three miles from town, and in the woods. Persons knowing him to be a Seventh-day Adventist, came by and saw him at work. He was brought before the magistrate and found guilty on

His real

crime, his religion.

Others

not mo. lested.

A false charge.

Seventysix cases.

Jail and chain-gang service.

the two counts, although the first charge was false. The witness swore he saw him at work between eight and nine o'clock the morning of June 3, when, as a matter of fact, Mr. Curlett was in bed until about four o'clock P. M. that day, being sick. He was fined five dollars and costs, in default of which he, a poor man, was taken from a wife and a number of small children greatly in need of his assistance and care, and imprisoned for thirty days.

THE RECORD FOR TWO YEARS.

During 1895 and 1896, no less than seventy-six Seventh-day Adventists were prosecuted in the United States and Canada under existing Sunday laws. Of these, twenty-eight served terms of various lengths in jails, chain-gang, etc., aggregating 1,144 days, or nearly three and one-half years for a single person, as shown by the following:

Others were fined, while a few were acquitted or had the good fortune of having their cases dismissed. A number of those in Tennessee, after being in jail for thirty-four days, were pardoned by the governor.

SOUTH CAROLINA.

THE STRAWBERRY CASE.

Sunday laws have demonstrated in numerous instances that they are more readily adaptable to the uses of the intolerant bigot than to the true service of the Redeemer's kingdom. A case in point occurred in Greenville, South Carolina, in 1909. A family of conscientious Christians who observe as the Sabbath the day specified in the fourth commandment had moved from Montana to South Carolina, and settled near Greenville. They had procured a few acres of land and through economy and diligent effort, were doing what they could to make a living by raising fruit for the market.

Though strictly observing the seventh day of the week, they endeavored to avoid annoying their neighbors, by refraining, as far as possible, from doing any noisy work on Sunday. Their Christian conduct won for them the confidence, friendship, and respect of all their neighbors except one, whose objection to them seemed to be based more upon their strict observance of the Bible Sabbath than upon their Sunday work, inasmuch as he had made no complaint of his other neighbors who had occasionally worked on Sunday.

After hounding these Christians for some time, threatening them repeatedly with arrest, and spying upon them for the purpose of catching them at work on Sunday, this bigoted neighbor finally swore out a warrant for their arrest and for the arrest of several other members of the same faith, one at least of whom was not even on the place at the time specified in the warrant. The persons complained of were Mr. and Mrs. Sullivan Wareham, Benton Wareham, their fourteen-year-old son, Laura Darnell, Cannie Darnell, and four other seventh-day-keeping Christians, all of whom were accused of the crime(?) of picking strawberries on Sunday, May 2, 1909. "against the peace and dignity of the State of South Carolina."

The trial was set for August 3, at 9: 30 A. M., and a crowded court room was the result of the publicity given the case, on account of the fact that peaceable men and women, conscientious Christians, were to go on trial for their faith, through the invoking of an unjust law by a prejudiced and bigoted neighbor. Two of the accused were children under fourteen, and, as the Sunday law of South Carolina exempts children under that age, they were excused by the magistrate. The animus of the prosecution was demonstrated both in the demeanor of the plaintiff and in the testimony of the accusing witnesses. Several times the magistrate found it necessary to reprimand the plaintiff for the kind of language he employed. One of the parties whom the witnesses swore they saw picking berries was shown to have been more than one hundred fifty miles away at the time. One of the witnesses who swore he saw the accused picking berries was a quarter of a mile away, and on the opposite side of a hill.

A weapon for the bigot.

Exemplary citizens.

The spying neighbor.

On trial for their faith.

mus of the prosecutor.

The ani

Religious discussion debarred on a religious question.

An infrac tion of the fourteenth amendment.

An unwarranted tax.

Class legislation.

A dangerous weapon.

Not guilty.

A sufficient object lesson.

Editorial comment of the

Washington "Post."

The magistrate took occasion to instruct those who were to make the pleas that they were not to discuss any theological or religious question to determine which day of the week is the Sabbath, stating that the law of the State had decided which day was to be observed; and yet, as pointed out by Mr. K. C. Russell, who made the plea for the accused, the whole case was based upon religion. If religion had not been involved in it, there would have been no case to try. The "crime" with which the defendants were charged was "Sabbathbreaking," and there is no legitimate authority for Sabbath-keeping save the Word of God, the great fountain of religion. In his plea, Mr. Russell showed that the enforcement of Sunday laws upon those who observe the seventh day of the week was entirely out of harmony with the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which says: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It was further shown that the enforcement of Sunday laws upon Christians who observe another day of the week placed upon them a tax of one-sixth of their earning capacity, not for the support of their own religion, nor for the support of any legitimate function of government, but for the purpose of having them show deference to the religious customs or practices of others, for which taxation they could receive no possible adequate recompense. This was a palpable injustice, and all legislation making it possible was, beyond question, class legislation, the pernicious influence of which is frequently demonstrated, as in this case, through prejudice or tyrannical zeal. Religious legislation invariably puts a dangerous weapon into the hands of bigots, from whose blows better men - and women— suffer. After the plea, the magistrate read a short charge to the jury, who, after being out for half an hour, returned a verdict of not guilty, which met with general approval on the part of the townspeople. The case is valuable as a demonstration of the dangerous nature of all such laws. The work complained of was of the most inoffensive character, and the people accused of doing it were admitted to be, in every sense, most exemplary citizens. But this Sunday law made it possible for a prejudiced individual to hale into court those who were guilty of no real wrong, and, in case the jury had found for the plaintiff, he could have numbered among the criminal class the most unblemished members of the community, and doubtless kept up his nefarious work. One such case as this ought to be sufficient to demonstrate the iniquity of all Sunday legislation.

Commenting on this case under the caption, "A Matter of Conscience," the Washington Post" of August 19, 1909, said:

46

"A few days ago a thoroughly orthodox Christian in one of the Southern States found five members of the Adventist faith working in the field a Sunday. Deeply imbued with the gloomy faith of a John Balfour of Burley, this excellent and exemplary man, just from the sanctuary, where he worshiped in the name of Him who sat at