3 . %^ .o^. 
 
 ^ PRINCETON, N. J. *^ 
 
 Presented by_S7r? / J^ \ v \ S ,t->(SC'i~V?(S- .Go>ro,ro 
 Division ....Uw*t ' 
 
SABBATH LAWS 
 
 IN THE 
 
 UNITED STATES. 
 
 By R. C WYLIE, D. D. 
 
 With an introduction by the 
 REV. S. F. SCOVEL, D. D\ 
 
 Office of 
 
 THE NATIONAL REFORM ASSOCIATION, 
 
 209 Ninth St., Pittsburgh, Pa. 
 
 19 5 
 
COPYRIGHT, 1905, 
 
 BY 
 
 RICHARD CAMERON WYLIE, D. D. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 It has been a matter of great satisfaction to me that the 
 author of this compilation and analysis of the Sabbath Laws in 
 the United States was found willing, amid the pressing cares of a 
 city pastorate, to undertake the task of preparing the work now 
 given to the press. In these introductory words 1 must be con- 
 find to such considerations as may go to prove the proposition 
 that this book is worthy the attention of the public, and of the 
 whole public, as well as that of the bench, the bar and the pulpit. 
 
 1. It is unique and without precedent, so far as I know, in 
 its comprehensiveness. 
 
 2. It has been carefully and even laboriously prepared with 
 diligent comparisons of legal texts and discriminating choice of 
 the most important material in the various decisions and situa- 
 tions. 
 
 3. It is of equal interest to men of all shades of opinion be- 
 cause it presents the maximum of facts accompanied with only 
 the minimum of the reasoning which belongs to the pronounced 
 views of the respected author and those whom he represents. It 
 is, in this respect, not much more than a ''catalogue raisonne." 
 Its main function is to supply much-needed information not 
 otherwise to be conveniently found. 
 
 4. It is of interest to every citizen thoughtful enough to 
 desire knowledge of that which underlies our civilization. Noth- 
 ing has been more characteristic of our institutions from the be- 
 ginning, and nothing has attracted more concentrated and sus- 
 tained attention than our "American Sabbath." Books of ob- 
 servation by mere excursionists as well as books of profound 
 study of our institutions have taken notice of this feature of our 
 
ii INTRODUCTION. 
 
 national life. It is just now .published, for example, that the 
 day of rest on the fleet of Commodore Perry, including the piping 
 of all hands to divine worship and the exclusion of the Japanese 
 themselves who would have visited the ships on that day, made 
 a .profound impression on that wonderful people then just open- 
 ing eyes and minds to Occidental civilization. 
 
 When the abrogation of the slender requirement for Sab- 
 bath rest was under discussion in France, less than a decade 
 after the third Republic had been established, a Catholic Deputy 
 appealed to the Chamber to remember that the nations whose 
 commercial competition they most feared — the United States be- 
 ing one of them — were the Sabbath-keeping nations. It has not 
 only been visible in its results, but fundamental in its implica- 
 tions that we have had three Sabbath-rest-securing classes of 
 enactments, Colonial, Commonwealth and Federal. It has been 
 the demonstration of our character as a Christian nation, and has 
 given us the right to insist upon our privilege of Sabbath ob- 
 servance by sea and land wherever our flag floats. 
 
 5. This book shows the foundation in common sentiment 
 and customs and in common law, as well as in statute law, of a 
 civil institution which has had a controlling influence in our 
 whole national development. It is not too much to say that our 
 Sabbath laws were introduced in the period of our highest na- 
 tional ideals, and have been operative through the noblest per- 
 iods of our national history. Can it be denied by any — even 
 by those most addicted to the reproachful terms, "puritanical,'^ 
 "blue laws" — that the American Sabbath has conserved if not 
 created the national character on its best side by law-abiding,, 
 self-control and serious view of the citizen's responsibilities? 
 And are there any who fail to perceive tliat our need of more of 
 this best side of our national character; is now most urgent,, not 
 to say distressing? Does anyone doubt, that neglect of these laws 
 and the partial loss of the seriousness.jwhich is the condition of 
 free institutions, have been co-incideiit? A -life : which ; wjll not 
 cease at any time, wholly,- its eagerrpursuit of ga,in, and will only 
 yield partially in order to pu,i^,};ire pleasure, must necessarily- faii; 
 in providing the elements :0f gteadiness and consideration, of high 
 moral ideas and vocations tiwhieh arfeiiidispensable torself-gov- 
 
INTRODUCTION iif 
 
 ernment. Our Sabbath laws are largely efificient in preserving 
 for us what remains of our most important national traits. Faith- 
 fully observed, they would mightily help to repair our losses. 
 
 6. This book must appeal with great force to the consider- 
 ation of the workingmen, whether as individuals or in their or- 
 ganizations. It is a veritable arsenal for them in urging their 
 most reasonable demands concerning the conditions of labor — 
 conditions that affect our whole national life most profoundly. 
 Here is a vast army, each man of which may well become a sol- 
 dier in the cause of Sunday rest. Overstrained brains and mus- 
 cles and fatigued attention in such exacting employment as rail- 
 roading, for example, are foes to the security of the whole com- 
 munity as well as that of the individual victims. And in our rail- 
 roads alone there are said to be one million and a half of men 
 (and many of them skilled men of the highest class and charac- 
 ter), forced to work on the Sabbath. The tide is ever rising and 
 sweeping new classes of men into employment and incidentally 
 disturbing more people with temptations to spend a homeless, 
 "wide-open" Sabbath. Sabbath work is driving conscientious 
 men out of some occupations where conscience is much needed, 
 or driving such men into guilty compromises which must end- 
 disastrously for them. 
 
 The great truth has never been disputed which was thus 
 formulated years ago in the Geneva Conference : "The laiv of 
 rest for all is the condition of rest for any." Note the force of 
 competition in the matter of Sunday excursions. So many rail- 
 road authorities have said: "We do not prefer Sunday excur- 
 sions;" and some have said : "We will not. have them, they are no 
 better financially than morally." And yet, while there are not 
 wanting cheering hopes of better things,.almost all the roads are 
 crying out : "We must because the others do." The law of rest for 
 "all" disobeyed, destroys the hope of rest for "any." Agitation 
 in other countries takes up the question at this poiait:and Sunday 
 laws are proposed iui- France and Spain: When the discussion 
 above mentioned, took place in France .the argument was- ad- 
 vanced: "You have been carefully: seeking methods to shorten 
 the hours .of the working day, Jand yet rvon: are .proposing to 
 take away all the protection. :the laborer.; Has for. one-seventh of 
 
iv INTRODUCTION. 
 
 his whole time." Will not the workingmen, now such keen stu- 
 dents of all social conditions, see the "coign of vantage" they 
 have in pressing the argument for a rest day? Here the whole 
 people are with them. Here is an oppression at which they may 
 justly rebel. They need but to stand solidly by their real friends 
 in this matter and a greater relief will come to their class, as a 
 whole, than has been thought possible, save by a few. Physi- 
 cal relief alone, coming in the way in which science has already 
 shown it can best come, i. e., by a weekly rest equalizing the daily 
 limitation of vital force, is an argument no man can withstand 
 who cares for the well-being of his fellowmen or the progress of 
 society. 
 
 7. The book should gain the attention of fathers and 
 mothers and all who properly estimate the home as the real 
 matrix of every advanced civilization. More and more social 
 science bears testimony to the central position and the inex- 
 pressibly important relations of the home. Sociologists consid- 
 er it an epitome of all social life. Philanthropists claim that the 
 dependent classes can only be prophylactically treated through 
 better homes and the penologists concur as to the criminal 
 class. But who does not know that the Sabbath day is the sanc- 
 tuary of home. Sabbath laws make it possible for thousands 
 and beckon toward it the millions. By so much as home means 
 all that is best and brightest for men, women and children, by 
 so much must the Sabbath laws be valued and respected. 
 
 8. And these laws, so thoroughly supported where they ex- 
 ist by the highest judicial decisions, are a perpetual plea for their 
 own enforcement. Against all the pretences and weaknesses of 
 accommodating local politics, and against all that "tyranny of 
 the executive" which nullifies the declarations of the 
 legislatures and the decisions of the Courts, the laws 
 themselves are the most effective protest. They guard such 
 rights to rest, to home joys, to intellectual improvement, to 
 moral uplift and to religious elevation (surest force to all the 
 rest), that simply to know them cannot but help in every strug- 
 gle to enforce them. If this book is read by all those who ought 
 to read it, the majesty of the law would be more easily vindicated 
 and punished, and a moral indignation would not be wanting. 
 
INTRODUCTION. v 
 
 9. And when defense is desired against the common objec- 
 tion to all moral legislation that such laws interfere with personal 
 liberty or liberty of conscience, all that is necessary is to find in 
 this volume what these laws really are, what end they are 
 meant to subserve, how they have grown out from our deepest 
 life and how they have been vindicated at the very point of this 
 objection by the eminent authorities here cited. The contention 
 has been met in every conceivable shape and our Sabbath laws 
 have been judicially held to be perfectly consistent with our 
 bills of rights and with every foundation of personal liberty se- 
 cured by our free institutions. Nothing could demonstrate so 
 fully the timeliness and importance of this book as the urging 
 of this objection. The answer given therein is full and complete 
 and to trace and collate the various methods of its expression is 
 a sound education in that in which many thousands of our fel- 
 low-citizens most sorely need education, viz., the just limitations 
 of personal liberty. 
 
 ID. Moreover, it will surprise some faint-hearted friends of 
 a true rest day to note how large the area covered by the laws 
 which conserve it really is, and how soundly established those 
 laws appear to be. 'Tf the foundations be destroyed, what can 
 the righteous do?" . But the foundations are not destroyed. In 
 this volume (as also in the like brochure on the Bible in the 
 American schools,- which ought to be read far more widely) Dr. 
 Wylie has proved that we remain in that possession which is 
 "nine points of the law.". Could the demonstration of these two 
 treatises touch at once the hearts and minds of all the classes in 
 all our country which ought to be intensely interested, there 
 would arise a wave of earnest sentiment and hopeful endeavor 
 which would go far to vitalize and make increasingly efficient 
 this whole beneficent legislation. The situation is not desperate, 
 though its dangers may not be ignored. Under the conditions 
 of the revived interest which this book ought to aid largely in 
 creating, the retention, improvement and enforcement of our 
 Sabbath laws is in nowise impossible. Doubtless, individual 
 study and thought and consecration, together with associated 
 effort of all kinds, and wise and patient endeavor are needed ; but 
 they will appear and they will succeed. 
 
vi INTRODUCTION. 
 
 II. Yet, while 1 believe , this will be, we must not forget 
 what may be. The calamity of the loss of these laws would 
 be far greater than even the disrespect and disobedience with 
 which they are now treated. And they cannot always be dis- 
 regarded without being either so modified as to compromise 
 their value or being entirely abrogated. Entering the World's 
 Conference on the Sabbath question held some years ago at 
 Basel, I saw and heard an aged Swiss pastor, who with imploring 
 gesture and voice uttered the prayer: "O Herr, gieb du uns 
 wieder deinen heiligen tag." Once and again it was uttered in a 
 passionate fervor of supplication. Already we begin in this 
 favored land to utter the petition, which would be a despairing 
 cr}' if uttered to any other than God. 
 
 But what shall we not be prompted to beg if still farther 
 loss of these laws themselves shall show that the heart of the peo- 
 ple is turned away from the truth, and that the initiative of the 
 hostiles (the powerful association of gain and pleasure), together 
 with the indifference of the Christian forces, have gained the vic- 
 tory ! It would be a deplorable condition. According to the 
 genius of our race we would go from the top to the bottom and 
 ius of our race we will go from the top to the bottom and the lost 
 the lost Sabbath would mean more immorality, ungodliness, andf 
 anarchy than elsewhere. 
 
 May the justly founded hope to which this book leads be re- 
 alized, and the dark shadow of a great misfortune and the deep- 
 stain of a national sin be averted. 
 
 Sylvester F. Scovel. 
 
 \\'o(ister, Ohio, July ], 1*^05. ' 
 
 ■>i. fj::: 
 
 :-'}-\ .^■Ar.A U'}V'^ !.'::.':• / Xjv/Ji;--:-.- ri; ■;• '.:t*.i- .;..•.■. 'M.:!^: \ \\,'. '(; 
 
 .■:■^:^.:ii::^ ■■■■■■' '■'ti'i bnt :::.:'-vQS: '■} 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 History of Our Sabbath Laws. 
 •Colonial Legislation — The English Sabbath Law — The Edict of 
 Constantine — Variations in the Sabbath Laws of the United 
 States — The States, Classified 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Legislation Retaining the Principle of the English Law. 
 Georgia — Indiana — North Carolina — Rhode Island — South Caro- 
 lina 5 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Legislation with Strong Prohibitory Clauses and Few Exceptions to 
 their Application. 
 
 Arkansas — Connecticut — Delaware — Florida — Iowa — Kansas — Maine 
 — Maryland — Michigan — Missouri — North Dakota — Ohio — Okla- 
 homa — Pennsylvania — South Dakota — Tennessee — Utah 28 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Legislation Weakened by Numerous Exceptions. 
 Alabama — Kentucky — Louisiana — Massachusetts — Minnesota — Mis- 
 sissippi — New Jersey — New York — Texas — Vermont — Virginia — 
 West Virginia — Wisconsin — Wyoming. Porto Rico 89 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 States whose Sabbath Laws are Inherently Weak. 
 •Colorado — Illinois — Montana — Nebraska — Nevada— New Hampshire 
 
 — New Mexico — Oregon — Washington 145 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 No Sabbath Laws in Two States and One Territory. 
 Arizona — California — Idaho 166 
 
viii CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The General Government and the Sabbath. 
 Alaska — Indian Territory — Departments of the Government — Opin- 
 ions of the Courts of the United States 175 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 The Five-Fold Basis For Sabbath Laws. 
 1. — They Invade No Constitutional Right. 2. — They Protect Hu- 
 man Rights. 3. — They are Police Regulations. 4. — They Pro- 
 tect a Civil Institution. 5. — They Rest Upon Divine Authority 196 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The Ultimate Ground of Sabbath Laws 
 Conflicting Opinions — The Sabbath Before Moses — Moses and the 
 Fourth Commandment — Paul and the Sabbath — Christ and the 
 Sabbath — Permanency of the Sabbath — Conclusions 218 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 HISTORY OF OUR SABBATH LAWS. 
 
 The first legislation within the territory now occupied by the 
 United States was by the Assembly of Virginia in 1619. It con- 
 (tained a provision with respect to the proper observance of the 
 Sabbath. 
 
 In the Plymouth Colony, the Massachusetts Bay Colony 
 and some others no Sabbath laws were enacted for a number of 
 years after their settlement, the common law of England on this 
 vmatter being considered sufficient. 
 
 Gradually however it became evident that in this as well as 
 •in many other matters, it was the better plan to embody in 
 statutory enactments the principles of the common law in such a 
 iorm as to meet the requirements of local conditions. Sabbath 
 laws were therefore placed at an early date on the statute books 
 of all the Colonies. It is significant that these laws grew out o^ 
 the common or unwritten law, and were not forced upon the 
 •Colonies by any extraneous power either civil or eccleciastical. 
 
 At the time of the outbreak of the Revolutionary War the 
 law known as the 29th. Char-les II. Chapter VII., enacted in 
 '1^6, was the Sabbath law in force in all the American Colonies. 
 ■In legal circles it .is regarded as the immediate historical antece- 
 •dent of all our present Sabbath legislation. The study of this 
 legislation should be introduced by an investigation of the Sab- 
 "bath law of Charles II. Its principal clauses are herewith pre- 
 sented. 
 
 "I. (1) For the better observance aad keeping holy the Lord's day, 
 •commonly called Sunday: (2) be It enacted by the King's most excel- 
 lent majesty, by and with the advice' and consent of the lords, spiritual 
 and temporal, and of the Commons, in this present Parliament as- 
 
2 HISTORY OF OUR SABBATH LAWS. 
 
 sembled, and by the authority of the same, That all the laws eaacted 
 and In force concerning the observation of the Lord's day, and repair- 
 ing to the church thereon, be carefully put in execution; (3) and that 
 all and every person and persons whatsoever, shall every Lord's day 
 apply themselves to the observation of the same, by exercising them- 
 selves thereon in the duties of piety and true religion, paiblicly and priv- 
 ately; (4) and that no tradesman, artificer, workman, labourer, 
 or other person whatsoever, shall do or exercise any worldly 
 labour, business or work of their ordinary callings, upon the 
 Lord's day, or any part thereof (works of necessity and charity only 
 excepted; (5) and that every person being of the age of fourteen years 
 or upwards, offending in the premises, shall, for every such offense, 
 forfeit the sum of five shillings; (6) and that no person or persons 
 whatsoever, shall publicly cry, show forth, or expose to sale, any wares, 
 merchandise, fruit, herbs, goods, or chattels whatsoever, upon the 
 Lord's day, or any part thereof, upon pain that every person so offend- 
 ing shall forfeit the same goods so cried or showed forth, or exposed 
 to sale. 
 
 "IL And it is further enacted. That no drover, horse-courser, wag- 
 oner, butcher, higgler, they or any of their servants, shall travel or 
 come into his or their inn or lodging upon the Lord's day or any part 
 thereof, upon pain that each and every such offender- shall forfeit 
 twenty shillings for every such offense; (2) and that no person or per- 
 sons shall use, employ, or travel upon the Lord's day with any boat, 
 wherry, lighter or barge, except it be on extraordinary occasion, to 
 be allowed by some justice of the peace of the county, or some head- 
 officer, or some justice of the peace of the city, borough, or town cor- 
 porate, where the fact shall be committed; (3) upon pain that every 
 person so offending shall forfeit and lose the sum of five shillings f&r 
 every such offense 
 
 "III. Provided, that nothing in this act contained shall extend to 
 the prohibiting of dressing meats in families, or dressing or selling of 
 meat in inns, cook-shops, victualing houses, for such as otherwise iian 
 not be provided, nor to the crying or selling of milk before nine of tie 
 clock in the morning or after four of the clock in the afternoon." .... 
 
 "VI. Provided also. That no person or persons' upon the Lord's 
 day shall serve or execute, or cause to be served or executed, any writ, 
 process, warrant, order, judgment or decree (except in cases of treason, 
 felony or breach of the peace) but that the service of every such writ, 
 process, warrent, order, judgment or decree, shall be void to all in- 
 tents and purposes whatsoever; (2) and the person or persons so serv- 
 ing or executing the same, shall be as liable to the suit of the party 
 grieved, and to answer damages to him for doing thereof, as if he or 
 they had done the same without any writ, -process, warrant, order, judg- 
 ment or decree at^ all." (S1»tutes at Large, vol. VIII., Cap. VIL, pp. 
 412-14, 1763). -. i ' 
 
HISTORY OF OUR SABBATH LAWS. 5 
 
 This with a few supplementary sections is still the Sabbath 
 law of England. 
 
 Legislation for the protection of the first day of the week as 
 a day of rest may be traced back, through the history of the 
 various nations into which the Roman Empire was divided, to the 
 edict of Constantine, issued in the year 321 A. D., which is often 
 called the first "Sunday law." One very important point of 
 dilTerence is to be noted however between English and American 
 legislation and legislation in Continental Europe. In the latter 
 there is but seldom any reference to a divine warrant for Sabbath; 
 laws, while Sabbatli laws in England, especially from the Refor- 
 mation period, and in America from the planting of the first Colo- 
 nies, have been based upon the law of God. From this it follows- 
 that in our country no other day than the first day of the week is- 
 regarded as possessing a sacred character. We have a few holi- 
 days, but no other holy day than the Lord's day. It follows 
 likewise that the day thus recognized among us as holy and 
 protected by law from desecration is a vastly dififerent thing fron-i 
 a "Continental Sunday." 
 
 In a few of our States Sabbath laws are still modeled after 
 the act of Charles II. in forliidding "worldly labor or business or 
 work," in one's ordinary calling only. It was soon perceived in. 
 the most of the States that such a prohibition was wholly in- 
 adequate, and wrought injustice. If two persons, for example,, 
 are engaged in the same worldly labor, should it be the ordinary- 
 calling of the one and not of the other, the first is a violator of 
 the law and the second is not. At an early period therefore irn 
 nearly all the States these words, "ordinary calling," were omitted 
 and the prohibition made to extend to all worldly labor, business 
 and work, whether of one's ordinary calling or not. 
 
 In more recent years there has been a marked and growing; 
 tendency to depart from the former strictness of Sabbath legisla- 
 tion. In some States there has developed a pronounced an- 
 tagonism to all laws protecting the first day of the week except 
 such as would make it a mere holiday. A struggle is therefore 
 in progress throughout our country between the friends and foesi 
 of Sabbath laws. EtTorts are made in State legislatures to 
 secure the modification or repeal of these laws. Efforts are like- 
 wise made in civil courts to secure judicial opinions giving them 
 a liberal interpretation or even declaring them unconstitutional. 
 
^ HISTORY OF OUR SABBATH LA WS. 
 
 The changes brought' about in our Sabbath laws in the ways 
 thus indicated have resulted in the division of our States into five 
 distinct classes: (i) Those in which the law is still patterned 
 
 -after the act of Charles II. (2) Those that have adopted a 
 general prohibitory statute with few exceptions to its application. 
 
 ' (3) Those with laws containing general prohibitory clauses 
 weakened by numerous exceptions. (4) Those with laws con- 
 
 i taining prohibitory clauses inherently weak, their scope being 
 
 . limited. (5) Those that have no Sabbath laws. 
 
 In this discussion the States will be classified according to 
 this plan. The Sabbath law of each State will be given in full 
 according to the latest code. The figures on the right of the 
 names of the States indicate, not the year of the enactment of 
 the law, but the year of the publication of the code from which 
 the law is quoted. The law will be -followed by extracts from the 
 ■principal judicial opinions upholding its constitutionality and 
 
 ...giving its proper interpretation. 
 
 It is believed that such an investigation will answer many 
 questions raised concerning our Sabbath laws, remove much 
 prejudice against them, and multiply the forces arrayed in their 
 
 'defense. 
 
CHAPTER 11. 
 
 LEGISLATION RETAINLXG THE PRINCIPLE OF THE 
 ENGLISH LAW. 
 
 The States confining the prohibition of "worldly labor or 
 business or work" on the Lord's day to occupations of one's 
 "ordinary calling" are not numerous. It was doubtless per- 
 ceived at an early period that the prohibition in this form is in- 
 adequate and inequitable. Laws with this limiting clause how- 
 ever are not as weak as they might appear to be. Many things 
 not included in labor, business or w^ork can be wholly prohibited 
 in perfect harmony with this clause. It will be found that the 
 law in each of the States of this class is quite strong in some 
 other sections designed to suppress many of the most objection- 
 able forms of Sabbath desecration. 
 
 GEORGIA. (1895). 
 
 Article 6 of the Tenth Division of the Penal Code of Georgia 
 relates to keeping open dppling-houses on the Sabbath. Article 
 13 of the same division contains the general Sabbath law. The 
 important sections are the following : 
 
 "390. (4535). Any person who shall be guilty of open lewdness, 
 or any notorious act of public indecency, tending to debauch the mor- 
 als, or of keeping open tippling-houses on the Sabbath day, or Sabbath 
 night, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." (Vol. III. p. 119). 
 
 "420. (4578). If any freight train, excursion train or other train 
 than the regular trains run for the carrying of mails or passengers shall 
 be run on any railroad in this State on the Sabbath day, the superin- 
 tendent of transportation of such railroad company, or the officer hav- 
 ing charge of the business of that department of the railroad, shall be 
 liable to indictment in each County- through which such train shall 
 pass, and shall be punished as for a misdemeanor. 
 
 "The foregoing provision shall not extend to — 
 
^ GEORGIA. 
 
 "1. A train which has one or more cars loaded with live stock, 
 :and which is delayed beyond schedule time. Such train shall not be re- 
 quired to lay over on the line -of road during Sunday, but may run on 
 to the point where, by due course of shipment or consignment, the next 
 stock pen on the route may be, where said animals may be fed and 
 ^watered, according to the facilities usually offered for such transpor- 
 Ttation. 
 
 "2. A freight train running over a road on Saturday night, if 
 the time of its arrival at destination according to the schedule 'by which 
 it started on the trip, be not later than eight o'clock Sunday morning. 
 
 "3. Special fruit, melon and vegetable trains, the cars of which 
 contain no other freight except perishable fruits, melons, vegetables, 
 fresh fish, oysters, fresh meats, live stock, and other perishable goods 
 of a like character, and which trains shall be loaded and leave the 
 station from which they start in this State before the hour of midnight 
 on Saturday night previous to the Sunday on which they are operated. 
 
 "No company shall be compelled to run the trains mentioned in 
 this paragraph, and all freight-trains or cars thus loaded and coming 
 "into this State may run to any point of destination in tliis State or 
 -continue their run through the State on Sunday. 
 
 "422. (4579). Any person who shall pursue his business or the 
 ■work of his ordinary calling on the Lord's day, works of necessity 
 and charity only excepted, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 
 
 "423. (4580). Any person who shall hunt any kind of game with 
 gun or dogs or both, on the Sabbath day, shall be guilty of a misde- 
 jneanor. 
 
 "424. (4581). Any person who shall bathe in a stream or pond of 
 ■wuter on the Sabbath day, in view of a road or passway, leading to or 
 from a house of religious worship, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." 
 <Vol. III. pp. 127-129). 
 
 Sabbath desecration is declared by these sections to be a misde- 
 meanor. The following is the penalty for all misdemeanors. 
 
 "1039. Every crime declared to be a misdemeanor is punishable 
 by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars, imprisonment not to ex- 
 ceed six months, to work in the chain-gang on the public works, or on 
 :3uch other works as the County authorities may employ the chain-gang, 
 •not to exceed twelve months, and any one or more of these punish- 
 ments may be ordered in the discretion of the judge." (Vol. III. p. 
 :292). 
 
 Numerous cases have come before the Supreme Court of 
 the State requiring opinions both as to the constitutionahty and 
 "the proper interpretation of the law. 
 
 In Neal and others v. Crew, in a few vigorous sentences, the 
 "basis of the law in the divine will and its value to society were 
 maintained. The Court said : 
 
 "All agree that to the well-being of society, stated intervals of 
 
GEORGIA. 7 
 
 rest are absolutely necessary. We shouW not tempt mankind therefore, 
 to yield obedience to municipal arrangments which overlook and dis- 
 regard the moral law of the great Jehovah, who, from the smoking 
 top of Mount Sinai proclaimed to all the world, 'Remember the Sabbath 
 day to keep it holy; in it thou shalt not do any work." (12 Ga. 93, 
 1852). 
 
 In the case of Karvviscli v. the Mayor and Council of 
 Atlanta, in which Karvvisch had been convicted before the Mayor 
 and Council of Atlanta for keeping open his store on the Sab- 
 bath, the Supreme Court, to which the case came on the refusal 
 of the Court below to grant a certiorari, declared as follows : 
 
 "The law fixes the day recognized as the Sabbath day all over 
 Christendom, and that day, by Divine injunction, is to be kept holy— 
 •on it thou Shalt do no work.' The Christian Sabbath is a civil insti- 
 tution, older than our government, and respected as a day of rest by 
 our constitution, and the regulation of its observance as a civil institu- 
 tion has always been considered to be, and Is, within the power of the 
 Legislature as much as any regulations and laws, having for their ob- 
 ject the preservation of good morals and the peace and good order of 
 society." (44 Ga. 205, 1871). 
 
 In Bass v. Irwin it was held that ihe act of receiving a ver- 
 dict on the Sabbath is illegal. The Court said : 
 
 "In every form, — by all the different authorities of this State — by 
 its organic law — its civil and criminal code, and by every judicial de- 
 cision upon the question, the Sabbath day is regarded as the Lord's 
 day, and it is protected from violation by so many guards that the 
 Courts should not be allowed to invade its sanctity, and in so doing 
 make a record to be read by all men in all time." (49 Ga. 436, 1873). 
 
 In the case of Salter et al. v. Smith the Supreme Court 
 sustained the act of taking bail and discharging a prisoner on the 
 Lord's day, as not a violation of the law. The followino- 
 
 language was used : 
 
 "Independently of the moral obligation resting upon all men to 
 obey the law of the Lord, and to observe, by abstaining from all secu- 
 lar business, the day set apart for His worship throughout Christen- 
 dom, the rest of one day in seven from all physical and mental labor, 
 is a great conservative, refreshing, invigorating means, designed by 
 Almighty wisdom for the preservation of health and the recreation of 
 our mental and bodily faculties." (55 Ga. 244, 1875). 
 
 In the case of Weldon et al. v. Colquitt, Governor, the 
 
 Supreme Court said : 
 
 "In Georgia, as in England, Sunday is a holy day. The Code de- 
 nominates it the Lord's day, and as the Lord's day all Courts and mag- 
 istrates are to consider it. This they are to do as a matter of mere 
 law, irrespective ot religious obligation and duty. On it there can be 
 
8 GEORGIA. 
 
 performed no judicial labor which does not come fairly within the de- 
 scription of works of necessity or charity. Sunday is no day for trial 
 and judgment, being by the common law, dies non juridicus. The 
 mere act of receiving a verdict on Sunday, which the jury are ready to 
 deliver, is illegal. 49 Ga., 436. The current of decision by this Court 
 has been pro-Sabbatic in full measure, and with that current runs, we 
 think the true law, as well as the general moral sentiment of the peo- 
 ple of the State. Courts, high or low, are no less bound to abstain from 
 ordinary labor on the Sabbath day, t^an are private individuals." (62 
 Ga. 449, 1879). 
 
 In Henningtoii v. the State the constitutionaHty of section 
 4578 of the law, making it a misdemeanor to run a freight train 
 upon any railroad in the State on the Sabbath day was upheld. 
 The plea of the plaintift was that the section in question is re- 
 pugnant to article i, section 8, of the constitution of the United 
 States which gives to Congress the exclusive right to regulate 
 interstate commerce. The Supreme Court held that this section 
 together with the remainder of the Sabbath law is a police regula- 
 tion and that its effect on interstate commerce is only incidental^ 
 such as any broad and comprehensive police regulation may 
 have. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the 
 United States which Court upheld this opinion. (See Chapter 
 VII, p. 186.) The Supreme Court of Georgia said : 
 
 "At no instant since her independence was declared has Georgia 
 been without such a law on her statute book. . . .There can be no well 
 founded doubt of its being a police regulation, considering it merely as 
 ordaining the cessation of ordinary labor and business during one day 
 in every week; for the frequent and total suspension of the toils, cares 
 and strain of mind or muscle incident to pursuing an oc^'ipation or com- 
 mon employment, is beneficial to every individual, and incidentally to 
 the community at large, the general public. Leisure is t\o less essential 
 than labor to the well-being of man. Short intervals of leisure at 
 stated periods reduce wear and tear, promote health, fas'or cleanliness, 
 encourage social intercourse, afford opportunity for introspection and 
 retro~pection, and tend in a high degree to expand the thoughts and 
 sympathies of people, enlarge their information, and elevate their mor- 
 als. They learn how to be, and come to realize that being is quite as 
 important as doing. 
 
 "Without frequent leisure, the process of forming character could 
 only be begun; it could never advance or be completed; people wouTS 
 be mere machines of labor or business — nothing more. . . . .That which 
 is properly made a civil duty by statute is none the less so because it 
 is also a real or supposed religious obligation; nor is the statute vitiated, 
 or in any wise weakened, by the chance, or even the certainty, that in 
 passing it the legislative mind was swayed by the religious rather than 
 
GEORGIA. 9' 
 
 by the civil aspect of the measure. Doubtless it is a religious duty to 
 pay debts, but no one supposes that this is any obstacle to its being 
 exacted as a civil duty. With few exceptions, the same may be said 
 of the whole catalogue of duties specified in the Ten Commandments. 
 Those of them which are purely and exclusively religious in their na- 
 ture, cannot be or be made civil duties, but all the rest of them may be, 
 in so far as they involve conduct as distinguished from mere opera- 
 tions of mind or states of the affections. Opinions may differ, and ther 
 really do differ, as to whether abstaining from labor on Sunday is a 
 religious duty, but whether it is or not, it is certain that the legisla- 
 ture of Georgia has prescribed it as a civil duty. The statute can fair- 
 ly and rationally be treated as a legitimate police regulation, and thus 
 treated, it is a valid law." (Hennington v. The State 90 Ga. 396, 1892). 
 
 In the same year (1892) the constitutionality of the law 
 against hunting on the Sabbath was tested, on the ground that 
 it interferes with the right to worship God according to the 
 dictates of conscience and attempts to punish for religious opin- 
 ions. Its constitutionality was sustained. (Gunn v. the State, 
 89 Ga. 341.) 
 
 Various devices have been resorted to for the purpose of 
 evading the liquor law. The following are examples: 
 
 The Albany Glee Club, for the purpose of securing liquors- 
 on the Sabbath adopted the following resolutions : 
 
 "Resolved, that this club, and we the members thereof, knowing, 
 that it is in strict violation of the city as well as the State laws for any 
 dealer in spirituous or fermented liquors to sell on the Sabbath day, 
 and not wishing to violate the laws in any part or sentence, nor to- 
 cause others to do so, and knowing that every laboring man or others 
 who are in the habit of taking their social drinks during the week, 
 wants and needs it on the Sabbath, 
 
 "Resolved, That in order to comply with the laws in every particu- 
 lar, we agree to pay the sums opposite our respective names, to a 
 treasurer to be chosen by the club, on or before the Saturday preceding^ 
 each Sabbath, for the purpose of purchasing the liquor necessary for 
 the use of the club the following Sabbath." 
 
 The Supreme Court held that the house where the Albany 
 Glee Club met and drank on Sabbath was a tippling-house, and 
 that the owner was both the keeper of a tippling-house and a 
 retailer of spirituous liquors. (63 Ga. 318, 1879.) 
 
 In Hussey v. the State it was shown that a sign was up \n 
 the saloon stating that the bar was closed, but that liquors were 
 served in another room used as a restaurant. The Court declared 
 
 as follows : 
 
 "It makes no difference in law whether the place be called a bar 
 
lo GEORGIA. 
 
 room, or a glee club resort, or a parlor, or a restaurant, if it be a place 
 where liquor is retailed and tippled on the Sabbath day with a door to 
 get into it so kept that any body -can push it open and go in and drink 
 the proprietor of it is guilty of keeping open a tippling house on Sunday. 
 It makes, no difference if the drinking be done standing or sitting — at a 
 "bar or around a table — it is tippling, and the place where it is done is 
 a tippling house; and if anybody wishing to drink can have access 
 thereto — if ingress and egress be free to all comers — it is a tippling 
 liouse kept open on Sundays." (69 Ga. 54, 1882). 
 
 The Sabbath law of Georgia as sustained and defined by the 
 Supreme Court of the State is thus shown to be a very efficient 
 law. Its principal weak point is in the clause limiting the pro- 
 hibition as to labor, business and work to acts of one's ordinary 
 •occupation. Under this statute it is held that a note given on the 
 Lord's day, not of necessity or charity, and not in the exercise of 
 ■any worldly labor, business or work of the ordinary calling of 
 the parties to it. is not prohibited by the statute. This is a 
 -dangerous clause in a Sabbath law and might be used to the de- 
 struction of the peace and order of the day of rest. In other 
 respects the law is admirable and the penalties sufficient. The 
 first four opinions given above in which the divine basis for Sab- 
 bath laws is set forth with nuich force and clearness are especially 
 worthy of commendation. 
 
 INDIANA. (1901). 
 
 Chapter 50 of the Code of Indiana is entitled "Crimes." 
 Article 5 of this Chapter treats of crimes "Against Public 
 Morals." The sections relating to "Sabbath Breaking" are 
 
 these : 
 
 "2086. Whoever, being over fourteen years of age, is found on the 
 Urst day of the week, commonly called Sunday, rioting, hunting, fish- 
 ing, quarreling, at common labor, or engaged in his usual occupation^ 
 (works of charity and necessity only excepted), shall be fined in any 
 sum not more than ten nor less than one dollar; but nothing herein 
 contained shall be construed to affect such as conscientiously observe 
 the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, travelers, families remov- 
 ing, keepers of toll-bridges and toll-gates, and ferrymen acting as such. 
 
 "2087. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, to engage in 
 playing any game of baseball where any fee is charged, or where any 
 reward, or prize, or profit, or article of value is depending upon the 
 result of such game, on the first day of the week commonly called Sun- 
 day, and every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a misde- 
 meanor, and upon conviction shall be fined in any sum not exceeding 
 twenty-five dollars." (pp. 831, 832). 
 
INDIANA. II 
 
 "2098. Whoever shall sell, barter, or give away to be drunk as a 
 beverage, any spirituous, vinous, malt or other intoxicating liquor, 
 upon Sunday, the Fourth of July, the first of January, the twenty-fifth 
 of December, (commonly called Christmas day), Thanksgiving day 
 as designated by the governor of this State or the President of the 
 United States, or any legal holiday; or upon the day of any election in 
 the township, town or city where the same may be holden; or between 
 the hours of eleven o'clock P. M. and five o'clock A. M.,— shall be fined 
 in any sum not more than fifty dollars nor less than ten dollars to 
 which may be added imprisonment in the county jail not more than 
 sixty days nor less than ten days." (p. 871). , 
 
 Processes may be issued on the first day of the week whenever it 
 shall appear by affidavit that the object of such process would be de- 
 feated by delaying to another day. (Sec. 1454). 
 
 Numerous cases have come before the Supreme Court of 
 Indiana involvinfi: both the constitutionahty and the proper con- 
 struction of the Sabbath law. 
 
 In Vog-elsong v. the State an elaborate argument against 
 the validity of the law was presented by the counsel for the de- 
 fense, but the Court, instead of discussing the issues raised, de- 
 clared that "the question can hardly be considered an open one." 
 {9 Ind. 112. 1857). 
 
 In the above case the indictment was for selling liquor on 
 the Sabbath, and the Court held that the sale of liquor is labor, 
 and when liquor selling is one's usual occupation the law forbids 
 It. In Thomasson v. the State the indictment was the same as 
 in the above case. But the Court held that while it is competent 
 for the legislature to prohibit, as a police regulation, the sale of 
 liquor on Sunday, it is doubtful whether it has the power to enact 
 a law compelling the observance of the Sabbath. The gist of 
 the argument is seen in the following sentences : 
 
 "When our existing government was created, its creators deter- 
 mined that there were some matters in which the majority should not 
 ■control the minority; that there were some things over which the Leg- 
 islature should not have authorfty; that in some things the people 
 should not be within the power of the Legislature. Such is our or- 
 ganization of government — our Constitution. One of the subjects 
 withdrawn by that Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, from legislative 
 interference, is that of religion, and the writer has no hesitation in 
 saying, highly as he individually values the Sabba-th, tkat if the Sun- 
 day law is upon the statute book for the protection or enforcement 
 ■of the observance of that day, as an institution of the Christian relig- 
 ion, it cannot be upheld; no more than could a law forbidding labor on 
 Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, or on any and all other days of 
 
12 INDIANA. 
 
 the week, which may be, in fulfillment of a requirement of a creed,, 
 set apart for religious observance, by any portion of our citizens, 
 whether Christian, Jewish, Mohammedan, or Pagan. It is not, of 
 course, meant here to trench upon the laws to protect meetings of those 
 desiring to worship from disturbance, on all days. Can the Sunday 
 law be maintained as a mere police regulation, without reference ta 
 an institution of religion? Could the Legislature enact a law that na 
 man should labor on New Year's day? The Legislature enacts a law 
 that no man shall compel his children, apprentices, and employees to. 
 labor more than ten hours a day, and it may be well. Such a law may 
 be a reasonable regulation of labor to protect the weak from the op- 
 pression of the strong; but has the Legislature ever attempted to enact 
 a law, that the father or employer should not himself labor more than 
 ten hours a day, if he preferred to do so? 
 
 So, perhaps, the Legisla'ture, on the same principle, might enact a 
 law that no man should compel those under him to labor more than 
 six days in a week; that he should allow one-seventh of the days for 
 rest; but could it enact that no individual should labor for himself but 
 six-sevenths of the days? We express no fixed opinion on the point 
 here, as the case does not require it. Dees it not involve the patriarchal 
 theory of government? (15 Ind. 449, 1860). 
 
 Again in 1870, in Foltz v. the State, the question of the 
 constitutionality of the law was considered by the Supreme Court 
 of the State and an affirmative answer given (33 Ind. 215.) 
 
 Once more in 1881 in Johns v. the State the constitution- 
 ality of the law was attacked, this time on the ground that it 
 makes an exception in favor of those who observe the seventh 
 day of the week as the Sabbath. It was contended that this 
 proviso brings the law into conflict with that section of the bill 
 of rights in which the General Assembly is forbidden to grant to 
 any citizen, or to any class of citizens, privileges or immunities, 
 which, upon the same terms, shall not belong equally to all 
 citizens. But the Supreme Court held that "The statute in ques- 
 tion under immediate mention does not grant immunities to one 
 class of citizens which, upon the same terms, shall not belong tO' 
 all." (78 Ind. 332). 
 
 Failing to break down the law by having it declared un- 
 constitutional, its enemies have industriously sought to secure a 
 liberal construction of the clause which excepts works of charity 
 and necessity. A few of the leading decisions on this point may 
 be studied with pro-fit. The first to be considered gives to the 
 opponents of the law about all they could desire. It is as fol- 
 lows : 
 
INDIANA. 13 
 
 "In the United States, where religion can be neither opposed nor 
 •supported by law, and where Sunday, under the law, is viewed purely 
 in a secular light, the tendency naturally is to relax the restrictions 
 of the Sunday laws in all things which do not interfere with the rights 
 
 of others, and do not annoy or discomfort the public generally 
 
 There is a difference between a work which may be done on one day 
 as well as another, and which is not a daily need, and a work necessary 
 to supply a constant daily want. There is no necessity for working in 
 a shop, ploughing a field, selling from a store, opening an office, going 
 to exchange or mart of commerce, or working at any common labor 
 or usual avocation on Sunday; but there is daily necessity for putting 
 a house in order, cooking food, taking meals, drinking coffee or tea, 
 smoking a cigar by those who have acquired the habit, or continuing 
 any other lawful habit, on Sunday, the same as there is upon a week 
 day; and whatsoever is necessary and proper to do on Sunday to sup- 
 ply this constant daily need, is a work of necessity within the fair 
 meaning of the law under consideration. In this State it has been held 
 that the manufacturing malt beer, gathering and boiling sugar-water 
 to prevent its waste, receiving the verdict of a jury by a Court, and 
 gathering the fruits of the earth to prevent their decay and taking 
 them to the market place on Sunday, are works of necessity, within the 
 meaning of the present act." "Keeping a hotel in this State on Sunday 
 is not unlawful. Keeping a hotel on Sunday, in the same way that it 
 is usually kept on a week day, is not unlawful. It follows then, that 
 if a hotel keeps a cigar stand, which is part of its establishment, from 
 which it sells cigars to its guests, boarders and customers on a week 
 day, to sell cigars from the same stand in the same way on Sunday 
 is not unlawful. Indeed, we see no difference, legally, between the act 
 of selling a cigar under such circumstances and the act of furnishing 
 a cup of tea or coffee, a meal of victuals, or supplying any other daily 
 want, to a customer on Sunday for pay." (Carver v. The State 69 
 Ind. 61, 1879). 
 
 This loose definition of the term "necessity," and the reason- 
 ing by which it was supported were afterwards controverted by 
 the same court. This was done in the case of Mueller v. the 
 State. (76 Ind. 310. 1881). Mueller was on trial for selling 
 cigars on the Sabbath. Justice Woods who delivered the opin- 
 ion of the court said : 
 
 "Necessity like fraud, is incapable of definition at once accurate 
 and sufficiently comprehensive to accomplish the object of this enact- 
 ment. The law, however, must often deal with the indefinable. The 
 lawgiver's work is to make the law in such general or specific terms as 
 are deemed suitable to declare his purpose. The duty of the Courts is 
 
 not to defeat, but to discover and enforce, the legislative design 
 
 What should be deemed a necessity, the law itself could not well have 
 been made to say, and any attempt of the Courts to frame a definition 
 
14 INDIANA. 
 
 of general application would be more likely to produce confusion than 
 certainty. The question in each case must be decided according to the 
 circumstances, and is, therefore more a question of fact than of law." 
 He then says that much of the confusion upon the subject has arisen 
 from such efforts as that made in the case of Carver v. the State, to 
 give an accurate definition. After quoting from that decision he pro- 
 ceeded to demolish it, as follows: That the hotel keeper "may not keep 
 open a stand, bar or other place, for the purpose of general sales to 
 resident customers or boarders, who, like other citizens, ought to an- 
 ticipate and furnish a supply for their Sunday wants, seems clear. 
 There should be no privilege allowed the hotel-keeper of selling to his 
 boarders and resident customers, which is not allowed to the keeper of 
 a boarding house or restaurant, or to other classes of dealers." As tO' 
 selling cigars to those who have acquired the smoking habit, he said: 
 "It is hardly probable that the law makers contemplated that the crav- 
 ings of a morbid and unnatural appetite should be deemed to create 
 such an imperious necessity for appeasement as that the general re- 
 quirement for Sunday observance should yield to it, while the supply- 
 ing of the ordinary necessities of life, like food and clothing, by pur- 
 chase and sale out of stores, should be forbidden If it can be said 
 
 by the Court that a cigar is necessary to the smoker, it is no less cer- 
 tainly known that a drink is, in the same sense, needful to the drinker. 
 The appetite for the latter is not weaker than the demand for the form- 
 er. The law, however, specifically forbids the sale of intoxicating 
 
 liquors on Sunday The rule which in Carver v. the State supra 
 
 is declared to be the true rule, is in fact a rule which cannot be practic- 
 ally applied without nullifying the law Under the rule as stated, 
 
 any lawful purpose may be accomplished by doing on Sunday what.un- 
 der the circumstances was necessary to achieve it. The law, however, 
 makes all purposes unlawful in so far as they require common labor or 
 the pursuit of accustomed employments on Sunday except works of 
 
 charity or necessity What does necessity, as used in this law 
 
 mean? It may be said, as has been said before, that it does not mean 
 an absolute physical necessity, but a moral fitness or propriety of the 
 work or labor done, under the circumstances of any particular case. . . . 
 Generally speaking, it ought to be an unforeseen necessity, or if fore- 
 seen, such as could not reasonably have been provided against." 
 
 The following opinions still further define the law. 
 
 The making of a promissory note on the Sabbath is common labor 
 and therefore illegal. (Reynolds v. Stevenson, 4 Ind. 619, 1853). 
 
 The harvesting of dead-ripe grain on the Sabbath is a work of 
 necessity. (67 Ind. 595, 1879). 
 
 Repairing a railroad track has been held to be a work of necessity. 
 (Yonoski et. al. v. the State 79 Ind. 393, 1881). 
 
 The publication of a notice of a Sheriff's sale in a Sunday news- 
 paper is illegal. (Shaw v. Williams, 87 Ind. 158, 1882). 
 
INDIANA. 15 
 
 One of the troublesome questions arising under Sabbath 
 laws is whether or not contracts made on the first day of the 
 week are binding. In Perkins v. Jones this question was 
 argued at some length. The principle involved as stated by 
 Lord Mansfield was quoted with approval as follows : 
 
 "The objection that a contract is immoral or illegal, as between the 
 plaintiff and defendent, sounds at all times very ill in the jnouth of the 
 defendant. It is not for his sake, howevrr. that the objection is al- 
 lowed; but it is founded in general principl='s of policy, "which the de- 
 fendant has the advantage of, contrary to real justice, as between him 
 and the plaintiff, by accident, if 1 may so say. The principle of public 
 policy in this: Ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No court will lend its 
 aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an 
 illegal act. 
 
 "If from the plaintiff's own stating, or otherwise, the cause of ac- 
 tion appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive 
 law of this country, there, the Court says, he has no right to be assist- 
 ed. It is upon that ground the court goes, not for the sake of the de- 
 fendant, but because it will not lend its aid to such a plaintiff. So, if 
 the plaintiff and defendant were to change sides, and the defendant was 
 to bring his action against the plaintiff, the latter would then have the 
 advantage of it, for where both are equally in fault, potior est conditio 
 defendentis." 
 
 The Supreme Court of Indiana holds that while a contract made on 
 Sabbath is void, it may be ratified on another day, but, "The mere 
 retention of that which has been received upon such a contract, even 
 after a demand for its return, will not amount to a ratification." (26 
 Ind. 499, 1866. See also Davis v. Barker. 57 Ind. 54, 1877). 
 
 In Peter v. Wright, it was shown that a contract had b^en made 
 for the delivery of flour requiring labor on the Sabbath. Only part of 
 the flour was delivered in the specified time, the price of the flour fell 
 and loss was sustained. The Supreme Court said: 
 
 "If it is illegal to make a contract on Sunday, it certainly is illegal 
 
 to contract to perform one requiring common labor on that day 
 
 If the vicissitudes of trade and speculation were allowed to fix the rule 
 as to what are works of necessity, there could be no observance of the 
 Sabbath. There are as a general thing, dangers attending every enter- 
 prise, which may be avoided by expedition; but the Sabbath is not the 
 day for common labor although by such labor dangers may be avoided." 
 (30 Ind. 476, 1868). 
 
 It will be observed by those who examine the cases that have come 
 before the courts in the different States that violators, of the Sabbath 
 law frequently plead the law as an excuse for the non-fulfillment of 
 obligations. A case in point is the following: 
 
 George H. Bennett, a brakeman on the New Albany & Chicago 
 Railway, was killed on the Sabbath while engaged in his usual voca- 
 
a6 INDIANA. 
 
 tion. His widow sued the company for damages. The plea of the com- 
 pany was that Bennett was violating the Sabbath law at the time he 
 was killed, and that this fact would bar the widow from the right to re- 
 cover. The Court held that the company "cannot now become the 
 champion of the Sunday law as an excuse for its wrong, or to defeat a 
 recovery." 
 
 In Dugan v. the State, a case relating to the running of a steam- 
 boat on the Sabbath to carry people to a picnic, the Court held 
 that this was neither necessity nor charity, and was therefore a viola- 
 tion of the law. (125 Ind. 130, 1890). 
 
 In Catlett v. Trustees of the M. E. Church, (62 Ind. 365, 1878), it 
 was held that a subscription made to a Church on the Sabbath is not 
 binding, but in the case of Bryan v. Watson, (127 Ind. 42, 1890), this 
 opinion was overruled, and such acts were held to be, not common 
 labor, but works of charity. It was held further that if such subscrip- 
 tions are forbidden by the law, "then every collection made on the 
 Sabbath day, in connection with religious services, is an act of common 
 labor, and unlawful." 
 
 In 1899, in the case of The State v. Hogreiver, (152 Ind. 652), an ef- 
 fort was made to secure a decision by the Supreme Court declaring 
 •section 2087, which forbids games of baseball on the Sabbath, to be un- 
 constitutional, but the effort failed. 
 
 Repeats efforts to secure the repeal of this section by the legis- 
 lature have also failed. 
 
 This exhibition of the legal struggles in Indiana over the 
 Sabbath law shows that the courts have sometimes wavered a 
 little both on the question of the constitutionality of the law and 
 of its proper interpretation. It appears however that the tone of 
 the later decisions is better than that of the older ones. The 
 people of Indiana are to be congratulated not only on this fact, 
 tut also on the fact that the legislature has refused to modify the 
 law at the solicitation of those who would make the Sabbath a day 
 for base ball and other athletic sports. 
 
 NORTH CAROLINA. (1883). 
 
 Chapter Twenty-five of the statutes of North Carolina is 
 entitled "Crimes and Punishments. " The following sections re- 
 late to the Sabbath : 
 
 "1115. If any person whosoever shall be known to hunt on the 
 Lord's day, femmonly called Sunday, with a dog or dogs, or shall be 
 found off his own lands on Sunday, having a shot gun, rifle or pistol, 
 every person so offending shall be subject to indictment; and shall pay 
 a fine not to exceed fifty dollars, at the discretion of the Court, two- 
 thirds of such fine to inure to the benefit of the free public schools in 
 
NORTH CAROLINA. 17 
 
 the County of which such convict is a resident, the remainder to the in- 
 formant. 
 
 "1116. It shall be unlawful for any person to fish on Sunday with 
 a seine, drag net or other kind of net, except such as are fastened to 
 stakes; and any person violating this section shall be guilty of a mis- 
 ■demeanor, and fined not less than two hundred nor more than five hun- 
 dred dollars, or imprisoned not more than twelve months. 
 
 "1117. If any person shall sell spirituous, or malt, or other intoxi- 
 cating liquors on Sunday, except on the prescription of a physician, and 
 then only for medical purposes, the person so offending shall be guilty 
 of a misdemeanor, and punished by fine, or imprisonment, or both, in 
 the discretion of the court." (Vol. I., pp. 448, 449). 
 
 Chapter Forty-nine relates to Railroad Companies. Section 
 1973 regulates railroad labor and traffic on the Lord's day : 
 
 "No railroad company shall permit the loading or unloading of 
 any freight car on Sunday; nor shall permit any car, train of cars, or 
 locomotive to be run on Sunday on any railroad, except such as may 
 be run for the purpose of transporting the United States mails, either 
 with or without passengers, and except such as shall be run for car- 
 rying passengers exclusively: Provided, that the word Sunday in this 
 section shall be construed to embrace only that portion of the day be- 
 tween sunrise and sunset; and that trains in transitu, having started 
 on Saturday, may, in order to reach the terminus or shops, run until 
 nine o'clock A. M. on Sunday, but not later, nor for any other purpose 
 than to reach the terminus or shops. And any railroad company vio- 
 lating this, section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor in each county in 
 ■which such car, train of cars or locomotive shall run, or in which any 
 such freight car shall be loaded or unloaded; and upon conviction shall 
 be fined not less than five hundred dollars for each offense; the fine 
 when collected to be paid to the State Treasurer for the use of the 
 public schools." (Vol. I., p. 759). 
 
 . Chapter Sixty-one is entitled "Sunday and Holidays." The 
 sections relating to "Sunday" are these: 
 
 "3782. On the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday, no tradesman, 
 artificer, planter, laborer, or other person, shall, upon land or water, 
 do or exercise any labor, business or work, of his ordinary calling 
 works of necessity and charity alone excepted, nor employ himself in 
 hunting, fishing, or fowling, nor use any game, sport or play, upon patn 
 that every person so offending, being of the age of fourteen years and 
 upwards, shall forfeit and pay one dollar. 
 
 "3783. If ar^^ person shall be known to hunt on Sunday with a 
 dog, or shall be found off his premises on Sunday, having with him a 
 shot gun, rifle or pistol, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and pay 
 a fine not exceeding fifty dollars, two-thirds of such fine to inure to 
 the benefit of the public schools in the county in which such convict 
 is a resident, the remainder to the informant; and upon failure of such 
 
i8 NORTH CAROLINA. 
 
 convict to pay the required line, tie sliall be imprisoned at hard labor 
 for not more than three months, as the Court shall direct: Provided, 
 that this section shall not apply to any person who may violate its 
 provisions in defence of his own property." (Vol. 2, pp. 573, "74). 
 
 The law provides that when a holiday falls on Sabbath the following 
 Monday shall be a holiday, and papers due on such Sabbath are pay- 
 able on Saturday, and papers otherwise payable on Monday are payable 
 on Tuesday. When Saturday is a legal holiday papers due on Sabbath 
 are payable on Monday. When Monday is a legal holiday papers due 
 on that day are payable on Tuesday. (Vol. II, pp. 573, 574). 
 
 The constitutionality of this law has never been seriously 
 questioned, and has only been considered incidentally by the 
 Supreme Court. The most important of the opinions in which 
 its, constitutionality is thus incidentally upheld was rendered in 
 1844 in State v. Williams. In this case Williams had compelled 
 his slaves to labor on his farm on Sabbath. The Court said: 
 
 "The conduct of the defendant is contrary to the usages of North 
 Carolina, the general welfare, and likewise to the law of the land. It 
 seems to us to be very reprehensible; for we perfectly concur in the elo- 
 quent passage in the Commentaries, on the propriety and political neces- 
 sity of keeping one day of the week for the purposes of public worship. 4 
 Bl. 63. The institution, wherever it has existed, has proved to be a 
 great good, promoting private virtue and happiness among all classes, 
 and the public morals and prosperity. It is, therefore, fit, that every 
 Commonwealth, and especially one in which Christianity is generally 
 professed, should set apart by the law a day for those purposes and 
 enforce its due observance by such sanctions as may seem adequate." 
 As to the offense in this case the Court said: "The truth is,, that 
 it offends us, not so much because it disturbs us in practicing for our- 
 selves the religious duties, or enjoying the sakitary repose or recreation, 
 of that day, as that it is in itself a breach of God's law, and a violation 
 
 of the party's own religious duty Although it may be true, that the 
 
 Christian religion is a part of the common law, it is not so in the sense 
 that an act contrary to the precepts of our Saviour or Christian morals, 
 is, necessarily, indictable. Those which are merely against God and 
 religion were left to the correction of conscien'ce, or the religious au- 
 thorities of the State Therefore, however clearly the profanation 
 
 of Sunday might be against the Christian religion, it is not and could 
 
 not be made, merely as a breach of religious duty, an offense 
 
 The Legislature, deeming it, as it does many other violations of Christ- 
 ian duty, detrimental to the State, may prohibit it, and then it will be 
 punishable to the extent and in the manner pointed out by the Legis- 
 lature. There are many offenses against God which are not offenses 
 against the State. An act is punishable in the temporal courts, not 
 as being prohibited by ecclesiastical authority, or even by the Divine 
 
NORTH CAROLINA. ly 
 
 Head of the Church, but as being forbidden by the civil power of the 
 State residing in the Legislature." (4 Iredell, 400). 
 
 In 1843 t^^6 Supreme Court hi Sloan v. Williford declared 
 that "a notice to take a deposition on Sunday is not good, and 
 a deposition taken on such notice must be rejected." 
 
 In speakinp^ of the rights of those who believe it to be 
 against the moral law to devote the Sabbath to secular concerns 
 
 the Court said : 
 
 "They ought neither to be compelled to violate their sense of duty, 
 nor to abandon their civil rights." "It would be indulging a wanton 
 or a worse spirit, If a party with, six other days in the week appropri- 
 ate to such a purpose, were encouraged to select for it the seventh."" 
 Ce Ired. 307). 
 
 In i860 the Supreme Court in Melvin v. Easly used 
 vigorous language as to the habit of taking adyantage of the 
 Sabbath law by persons who have cheated in contracts made on 
 the Lord's day. In this case a horse trader had sold a horse and 
 guaranteed its .soimdness which was false. The Court first 
 decided that the buyer did not violate the statute because buying; 
 horses was not his ordinary calling. Proceeding it said : 
 
 "The court will not aid any person who violates law; therefore, 
 the defendant could not maintain an action. This rule is adopted on 
 the ground of policy, for tke purpose of preventing the violation of 
 law, and if confined in its operation to the actual offender, its applica- 
 tion will be salutary, b»t if it be extended to the party who is not an 
 offender, so far from checking, it will encourage a violation of it, by 
 letting it be known to "horse-traders," "shop-keepers," and "all whont 
 •it may concern" that they may cheat with impunity, provided always, it 
 may be done on the Lord's day. "They will readily purchase this in- 
 dulgence and dispensation, by paying one dollar if it should be sued 
 for." (7 Jones. 356). 
 
 There is a law in North Carolina which says: "It shall be unlaw- 
 ful for any railroad company, etc., to allow any freight they may re- 
 ceive for shipment to remain unshipped for more than five days, unless- 
 otherwise agreed." It was held by the Supreme Court in A. Branch v., 
 W. & W. R. R. Co., that if the Sabbath is inducted in such' a period it: 
 is to be counted. (77 N. C, 347). 
 
 Receiving the verdict of a jury on Sabbath is not a violation of the^ 
 law. 
 
 In addition to the objectionable feature noted as belonging- 
 to the laws of all States of this class the law of North Carolina is 
 somewhat weakened by making the penalty for violating the sec- 
 tion relating to labor, business and work onlv one dollar. The 
 
20 RHODE ISLAND. 
 
 railroad law if enforced will prevent a vast amount of unneces- 
 sary disturbance of the peace and quietness of the day of rest. 
 The constitutionality of the law is sustained on high ground, 
 although there are some sentences in the opinion handed down 
 in State v. Williams open to criticism. All things consid- 
 ^ ered the law of this State is quite satisfactory. 
 
 RHODE ISLAND. (1896). 
 
 ''Chapter 281, Title XXX. treats of "OfTences against 
 '"Chastitv, Morality and Decencv." 
 
 The following sections relate to "Sabbath breaking": 
 
 "17. Every person who shall do or exercise any labor or business 
 or work of his ordinary calling, or use any game, sport, play or recre- 
 ation on the first day of the week, or suffer the same to be done or 
 used by his children, servants or apprentices, works of necessity and 
 "Charity only excepted, shall be fined not exceeding five dollars for the 
 first offense and ten dollars for the second and every subsequent of- 
 :fense. 
 
 "18. Every person who shall employ, improve, set to work or en- 
 courage the servant of any other person to commit any act named in 
 the preceding section shall suffer the like punishment. 
 
 "19. All complaints for violations of the provisions of the pre- 
 ■ceding two sections shall be made within ten days after the commit- 
 ting thereof and not afterwards. 
 
 "20. Every professor of the Sabbatarian faith or of the Jewish 
 religion, and such others as shall be owned or acknowledged by any 
 church or society of said respective profession as members of or as 
 belonging to such church or society, shall be permitted to labor in 
 their respective professions or vocations on the first day of the week, 
 ~but the exception in this section contained shall not confer the liberty 
 of opening shops or stores on the said day for the purpose of trade and 
 merchandise, or lading, unlading or of fitting out of vessels, or of 
 working at the smith's business or any other mechanical trade in any 
 compact place, except the compact villages in Westerly and Hopklnton, 
 or of drawing seines or fishing or fowling in any manner in public 
 places and out of their own possessions; and in case any dispute shall 
 arise respecting the persons entitled to the benefit of this section, a 
 certificate from a regular pastor or priest of any of the aforesaid 
 churches or societies or from any three of the standing members of 
 such church or society, declaring the person claiming the exemption 
 aforesaid to be a member of or owned by or belonging to such church 
 or society, shall be received as conclusive evidence of the fact." (p. 
 1003.) 
 
RHODE IS LA XI). 21 
 
 The statutes providing for the granting of licenses to liquor deal- 
 ers, showmen and pawnbrokers declare that these licenses shall not 
 authorize the carrying on of these occupations on the Sabbath. 
 
 All persons except those in military service are forbidden to dis- 
 charge firearms on the Sabbath. (Sec. 3, chap. 92.) 
 
 No civil process can be served on the Sabbath. (Sec. 34, chap.. 
 207.) 
 
 The cases that have come before the Stiprenie Court are few,, 
 and these deal principally with Sunday contracts. A peculiar 
 interest attaches to such contracts in Rhode Island because of 
 the clause in the statute liniitinji^ the prohibition to labor, business- 
 or work in one's ordinary calling. In Allen v. Gardiner this 
 was considered at length. The case related to the validity of a 
 •release executed by Gardiner on the first day of the week. The 
 Court declared that this statute is a transcript of 29th., Charles 
 II., § 7, and that the settled construction of it in England is that 
 it did not intend that every act of business or labor performed on 
 the first day of the week should be punishable, but that the 
 ordinary, daily occupation of men should be suspended on that 
 day, and that no act in the pursuit of that occupation or calling 
 should be performed, unless called for by some necessity, or mo- 
 tive of charity. A number of cases are cited, the following be- 
 ing a fair example. Drury, a banker, sent a horse to one Hull 
 who kept a commission stalole for the sale of horses by auction.. 
 Hull sold the horse to Defontaine at private sale on Sabbath. 
 The Court held that as selling horses was not Drury's occupa- 
 tion, and as selling at private sale was not Hull's, the statute was 
 not violated. The Court held that the law of Rhode Island is 
 to be similarly*construed. "The only inquiry in every case is,. 
 was the business or work done in the course of the ordinary 
 employment of the party? If it was, it is within the statute;, 
 otherwise, not." ( R. I. 7, 22, 1861.) 
 
 In Whelden v. Chappel it was held that -'The letting of a horse 
 on Sunday, by a livery stable keeper, in the ordinary course of his. 
 calling, when uncalled for either by necessity or charity, is an illegal 
 transaction." (R. I. 8, 230, 1865.) 
 
 In Sayles v. Wellman, relating to the sale of a horse on Sabbath, 
 and the validity of a note for part of the purchase money given on 
 the following Tuesday, the Court held that the note validated the con- 
 tract. The Court said: "We think that as the contract is invalid only 
 on account of the time, reason and weight of authority are in favor of 
 allowing a ratification, more especially where the defendant retains, 
 the property." (10 R. I. 465, 1873.) 
 
22 RHODE ISLAND. 
 
 The case of Smith v. Rollins serves to illustrate a common oc- 
 currence, and the interpretation of the law as to contracts made on 
 the Sabbath. Smith, a livery stable keeper, let, in his ordinary busi- 
 ness, a horse and carriage to be driven for pleasure to a particular 
 place. Rollins, the hirer, drove them to a different place, and returned 
 them damaged. Whereupon Smith brought trover against Rollins for 
 the conversion of horse, buggy and harness. The Court held that such 
 a contract is illegal, that the terms of the illegal contract must be 
 produced by the plaintiff in proof of the conversion; and that since the 
 contract is illegal, he cannot recover. (11 R. I. 464, 1S78.) 
 
 The question whether a person who, while traveling, receives an 
 injury through the carelessness of another, is entitled to damages, 
 came before the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Barney. The Court 
 called attention to the fact that this question is not always answered 
 in the same way. In some States it is held that such a person mu^t 
 show that he was traveling from necessity or charity, the burden of 
 proof being on him- to show that his own fault did not concur in caus- 
 ing the injury. The following cases in Massachusetts are referred to: 
 Bosworth V. Inhabitants of Swansey, 10 Met. 3G3; Jones v. Inhabitants 
 •of Andover, 10 Allen, 18; Stanton v. Metropolitan R. R. Co., 14 Allen 
 485; Smith v. Boston and Maine Railroad, 120 Mass. 490. The Court 
 ..adds: "The logic of this opinion is, that a person who receives an 
 injury while traveling, which he would not have received if he had not 
 "been traveling, contributes to the injury by the act of traveling, and 
 that he is therefore bound to show that his own fault did not concur in 
 causing his injury." 
 
 The validity of this reasoning is disputed by some courts, among 
 :them the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, which regards the traveling 
 ,as a "condition rather than as a cause of the injury," and that the in- 
 jured person is entitled to damages, (12 R. I. 392, 1880.) 
 
 A complicated case arose in 1888 involving the matter of a contract 
 made in Connecticut. The law of Connecticut prohibits secular busi- 
 ness on the Lord's day between sunrise and sunset, while that of 
 Rhode Island prohibits such business in one's ordinary calling between 
 midnight on Saturday and midnight on Sabbath. It was held that a 
 -contract made after sunset in Connecticut is valid and can be enforced 
 in Rhode Island. (Brown v. Browning, 15 R. I. 422.) 
 
 In Pepin v. Societe St. Jean Baptiste, it was held that "A bene- 
 'flcial society, in the trial of charges against a member under Its by- 
 laws, is not a court of law. Its action is a part of the business of 
 such a society, and is not void because transacted upon Sunday." (24 
 ■R. I. 550, 1902.) 
 
 The weakne.ss of laws of this class is seen in an as^gravated 
 'form in the case of Rhode Island, in Allen v. Gardner quoted 
 .above. In most other respects the law^ is excellent and is weH 
 •sustained bv the courts. 
 
SOUTH CAROLINA. 23 
 
 SOUTH CAROLINA. (1902). 
 
 "Non-observance of the Lord's day and Disturbing Religious 
 Worship" is the title of Chapter XXIV. of the statutes of South 
 Carolina. The following sections relate to the first part of this 
 
 title : 
 
 "500. No tradesman, artificer, workman, laborer, or other person 
 whatsoever, shall do or exercise any worldly labor, business or work 
 of their ordinary callings upon the Lord's day (commonly called Sab- 
 bath), or any part thereof (works of necessity or charity only ex- 
 cepted) ; and every person, bfeing of the age of fifteen years or upwards, 
 offending in the premises shall for every such offense forfeit the sum 
 of one dollar. 
 
 "501. No person or persons whatsoever shall publicly cry, show 
 forth or expose for sale any wares, merchandise, fruit, herbs, goods, 
 or chattels whatsoever, upon the Lord's day, or any part thereof, upon 
 pain that every person so offending shall forfeit the same goods so 
 cried, or showed forth, or exposed to sale. 
 
 "502. No public sports or pastimes, or bear-bating, bull-fighting, 
 foot-ball playing, horse-racing, interludes, or common plays, or other 
 games, exercises, sports or pastimes whatsoever, shall be used on the 
 Lord's day by any person or persons whatsoever; and every person or 
 persons offending in any of the premises shall upon conviction be 
 deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be subject to a fine not exceeding 
 fifty dollars or imprisonment not exceeding thirty days. 
 
 "503. In addition to the penalties prescribed against tradesmen, 
 artificers, workmen and laborers who shall do or exercise any worldly 
 labor, business or work of their ordinary calling upon the Lord's day 
 (commonly called the Sabbath) or Sunday, or any part thereof, any 
 corporation, company, firm or person who shall order, require or di- 
 rect any work to be done in any machine shop or shops on Sunday, 
 except in cases of emergency, shall upon conviction, be deemed guilty 
 of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined in a sum not less than one hun- 
 dred dollars and not more than five hundred dollars for each offense. 
 
 "504. For the better execution of all and every one of the forego- 
 ing provisions, every magistrate within his county shall have power 
 and authority to summon before him any person or persons whatso- 
 ever who shall offend in any of the particulars before mentioned, and 
 upon his own view, or confession of the party, or proof of any one or 
 more witnesses, upon oath, the said magistrate shall give a warrant, 
 under his seal, to seize the said goods cried, showed forth or put to 
 sale as aforesaid, and to sell the same; and as to the other penalties 
 and forfeitures, to impose the fine and penalty for the same, and to 
 levy the said forfeitures and penalties by way of distress and sale 
 of the goods of every such offender, returning the overplus, if any be, 
 after charges allowed for the distress and sale. All forfeitures and 
 
24 SOUTH CAROLINA. 
 
 penalties recovered under this chapter to be paid over to the County 
 Treasurer for the use of the county." (Vol. II., pp. 397, 398). 
 
 "516. Whoever shall keep, or suffer to be kept, any gaming table, 
 or permit any game or games to be played in his, her, or their house, 
 on the Sabbath day, such persons, on conviction thereof before any 
 court having jurisdiction, shall be fined in the sum of fifty dollars, ta 
 be sued for on behalf of, and to be recovered for, the use of the State." 
 (Vol. II., p. 403.) 
 
 Chapter L. of the Civil Code contains the General Railroad law. 
 Article VI. is entitled, "Regulations as to running trains on Sunday 
 and Carriage of Animals." The sections relating to the Sabbath are 
 these : 
 
 "2121. It shall be unlawful for any railroad corporation owning 
 or controlling railroads operating in this State to load or unload or 
 permit to be loaded or unloaded, or to run or permit to be run, on 
 Sunday, any locomotive, cars or trains of cars moved by steam power 
 except as hereinafter provided, and except to unload cars loaded with 
 animals. 
 
 "2122. Said corporations or persons may run on Sunday, during 
 the months of April, May, June, July and August, trains loaded ex- 
 clusively with vegetables and fruits; and on said day, in any and every 
 month, their regular mail trains, as may be rendered necessary by ex- 
 traordinary emergencies other than those incident to freight or pas- 
 senger traffic, and such freight trains as may be in transitu which can 
 reach their destination by six o'clock in the forenoon: Provided, That 
 the Railroad Commissioners shall have the power (upon proper ap- 
 plication made to them for the purpose, by the officers of the Church 
 or religious denominations in charge of the place where such services 
 are to be held) to authorize and permit the running of trains on any 
 Sunday in the year for the transporting of passengers to and from re- 
 ligious services: Provided the application for the permit and the 
 authority granted must both be in writing and made a part of the rec- 
 ords of said Railroad Commissioners. 
 
 "2123. Any train running by a schedule in conformity with the 
 provisions of this chapter, but delayed by accident or other unavoid- 
 able circumstance, may be run until it reaches the point at which it 
 is usual for it to rest on Sunday. 
 
 "2124. For a wilful violation of the provisions of the three pre- 
 ceding sections the railroad company so offending shall forfeit to the 
 State five hundred dollars, to be collected in any Court of competent 
 jurisdiction." (Vol. I., pp. 817, 1818.) 
 
 The following law relates to the sale of liquor on the Sabbath: 
 
 "It shall not be lawful for any person to sell, trade or barter any 
 spirituous liquors or wine on Sunday; and any person so doing shall 
 be liable to a fine of not less than ten dollars, or more than two hun- 
 dred dollars, or imprisonment for not less than ten days or more than 
 two months." 
 
SOUTH CAROLINA. 25 
 
 The constitutionality of Sabbath laws was sitstained by the 
 Supreme Court of South Carolina in 1833 in the case of Town 
 Council of Columbia v. Duke and ^Marks, who were indicted for 
 keeping their shop open on the Sabbath. 
 
 Judge Martin in delivering the opinion of the court de- 
 clared : 
 
 "The ordinance neither exacts nor imposes any religious duty or 
 obligation — it requires no sacrifice on the part of any one, unless clos- 
 ing their doors and suspending their business be so considered 
 
 It enjoins no profession of faith, demands no religious test, extorts no 
 
 religious ceremony, conf:'rs no religious privilege or preference 
 
 Now, if the Ordinance in question required either of the relators to ob- 
 serve Sunday as a sacred day, or to conform to the notions of others as 
 to its holy character, then it would be giving a 'preference,' or mak- 
 ing a 'discrimination,' in contravention of the Constitution." 
 
 The constittitionality of the law was again sustained in the 
 case of City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin in 1846. Mr. 
 Benjamin was a Jew and kept a store in the city of Charleston. 
 He sold goods on the Sabbath and was indicted under a city 
 ordinance which declares that "no person or persons whatever,, 
 shall publicly expose for sale, or sell, in any shop, warehouse, or 
 otherwise, any goods, wares, or merchandize whatsoever, upon 
 the Lord's day." The City Cottrt decided that this ordinance 
 "is in regard to the present defendant, in clear and palpable vio- 
 lation of the 8th Article of the constitution of the State," which 
 guarantees "the free exercise and enjoyment of religious pro- 
 fession and worship." The case then went to the Supreme 
 Court. The opinion of the lower court was reversed and the 
 constitutionality of the ordinance sustained. Among other 
 things the Court said : 
 
 "The Lord's day, the day of the Resurrection, is to us who are 
 called Christians, the day of rest after finishing a new creation. It 
 is the day of the first visible triumph over death, hell and the grave! 
 It was the birthday of the believer in Christ, to whom and through, 
 whom it opened up the way which, by repentance and faith, leads unto 
 everlasting life and eternal happiness! On that day we rest and to us 
 it is the Sabbath of the Lord — its decent observance in a Christian 
 community, is that which ought to be expected. 
 
 "It is not perhaps necessary to the purposes of this case, to rule 
 and hold that the Christian religion is part of the common law of South 
 Carolina. Still it may be useful to show that it lies at the foundation 
 of even the Article of the Constitution under consideration, and that 
 
26 SOUTH CAROLINA. 
 
 Hpon it rest many of the principles and usages, constantly acknowl- 
 edged and enforced in the courts of justice 
 
 "What gave to us this noble safeguard of religious toleration, which 
 made the worship of our common Father as free and easy as the air we 
 breathe, and his temple as wide, capacious and lofty as the sky he 
 has spread above our heads? It was not that spirit of infidelity, which 
 deified reason, denied God and was stained with more blood than 
 ever flowed upon the altars of the Aztec Idols. It was Christianity 
 robed in light, and descending as the dove upon our ancestors, which 
 gave us this provision. It was that same spirit which, when the war 
 of the revolution was about to commence, sanctified a fast, and pros- 
 trated a nation before the Lord of hosts, to ask his blessing and as- 
 sistance. . . . Again, our law declares all contracts contra tonos mores, 
 illegal and void. What constitutes the standard of good morals ? Is it 
 not Christianity? There certainly is none other. Say that cannot 
 be appealed to, and I don't know what would be good morals. The day 
 of moral virtue in wMch we live would, in an instant, if that standard 
 were abolished, lapse into the dark and murky night of Pagan immor- 
 ality. In this State, the marriage tie is indissoluble — whence do we 
 take that maxim? It is from the teaching of the New Testament 
 alone. In the courts over which we preside, we daily acknowledge 
 Christianity as the most solemn part of our administration. A Chris- 
 tian witness, having no religious scruples against placing his hand 
 upon the Book, is sworn upon the holy Evangelists— the books of the 
 New Testament, which testify of our Saviour's birtl^, life, death and 
 resurrection; this is so common a matter that it is little thought of 
 as an evidence of the part which Christianity has in the common law." 
 Taking up the Sabbath law the Court said: "It is, however, fancied 
 in some way this law is in derogation of the Hebrew's religion, inas- 
 much as by his faith and this Statute, he is compelled to keep two Sab- 
 baths. There is the mistake. He has his own, free and undiminished. 
 Sunday is to ue our day of rest. We say to tim, simply, respect us, 
 by ceasing on this day from the pursuit of that trade and business in 
 which you, by the security and protection given to you by our laws, 
 make great gain. This is a mere police or municipal regulation. If 
 the Israelite were allowed to make the objection that he would not be 
 constitutionally restrained from pursuing a public business on Sunday, 
 the infidel would say, as Duke said, "All days are alike to me, and 
 therefore I will at all times pursue my business." Such an assump- 
 tion is so preposterous that no one would tolerate it If it were 
 
 true that the commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy also required 
 the Israelite to work six days, as closely and faithfully as he is to ob- 
 serve the seventh day as a day of rest, then indeed there might be a 
 ground to say that the ordinance which requires him to desist, during 
 Sunday, from a public business, the sale of goods, was unconstitutional. 
 .... The meaning of the commandment is so plain that I almost fear 
 
SOUTH CAROLINA. 27 
 
 to add any explanation of my own. In six days the Israelite is to do 
 the work he may have to do; on the seventh he must not work— it is 
 his day of rest. No one ever supposed it could go further. I fancy 
 few among Israel worked every day in the six. If such had been the 
 commandment it would have been hard indeed. But it was intended 
 
 to set apart a day of rest, and not to give a command to labor 
 
 There is, therefore, no violation of the Hebrew's religion, in requiring 
 him to cease from labor on another day than his Sabbath, if he be 
 left free to observe the latter according to his religion." (2 Strobhart, 
 508.) 
 
 In Hellams v. Abercrombie. in which the dispute was about the 
 validity of a mortgage executed on the Lord's day, it was held that 
 since the law forbids exercising any worldly labor, etc., of one's ordin- 
 ary calling on the Lord's day, the execution of a mortgage, not being 
 fhe ordinary calling of the parties, is not forbidden. (15 S. C. 119, 
 1880.) 
 
 While the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina has 
 upheld the Sabbath law in opinions of considerable force, it is 
 clear that the law needs to be strengthened. 
 
 The weakness of the statute that prohibits labor, business or 
 work of one's ordinary calling- only is again apparent ; the penalty 
 of one dollar for violating the law against doing such work is 
 inadequate ; the law relating to railroads allows too much 
 latitude ; while the opinion declaring that notices in Sunday 
 newspapers are lawful does not seem to be based on any section 
 of the law, it would be well to amend the law so as to render 
 such opinions impossible. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 LEGISLATION WITH STRONG PROHIBITORY 
 
 CLAUSES AND FEW EXCEPTIONS TO 
 
 THEIR APPLICATION. 
 
 In the most of the States the limitation of the prohibitory 
 clause in the Sabbath law to labor, business or work of one's 
 ordinary calling, was, at an early day removed, and the prohibi- 
 tion made to extend to all worldly occupations whether of one's 
 ordinary calling or not. There is a large number of such States 
 in which modern efforts to weaken the law by multiplying ex- 
 ceptions to its application have met with very little success. 
 This class will now be considered. 
 
 ARKANSAS. (1904.) 
 
 Article 67, Chapter 48 of the Criminal law of Arkansas is- 
 entitled "Sabbath Breaking." It is as follows : 
 
 "2030. Every person who shall, on the Sabbath day or Sunday be 
 found laboring, or shall compel his apprentice or servant to labor or 
 to perform other service than customary household duties, of daily 
 necessity, comfort or charity, on conviction thereof, shall be fined one 
 dollar for each separate offense. 
 
 "2031. Every apprentice or servant compelled to labor on Sunday 
 shall be deemed a separate offense of the master. 
 
 "2032. The provisions of this act shall not apply to steamboats, 
 and other vessels navigating the waters of the State, nor to such man- 
 ufacturing establishments as require to be kept in continual operation. 
 
 "2033. No person who from religious belief keeps any other day 
 than the first day of the week as the Sabbath shall be required to ob- 
 serve the first day of the week, usually called the Christian Sabbath, 
 and shall not be liable to the penalties enacted against Sabbath break- 
 
 28 
 
ARKANSAS. 29 
 
 ing. Provided, no store or saloon shall be kept open or business carried 
 on there on the Christian Sabbath; and, provided, further, no person 
 so observing any other day shall disturb any religious congregation 
 by his avocations or employments. 
 
 "2034. Every person who shall on Sunday, keep open any store or 
 retail any goods, wares and merchandise, or keep open any dram-shop 
 )r grocery, or shall keep the doors of the same so as to afford ingress 
 or egress, or sell or retail any spirits or wine, shall, on conviction 
 thereof, be fined in any sum not less than twenty-five dollars nor more 
 than one hundred dollars. 
 
 "2035. Charity or necessity on the part of the customer may be 
 shown in justification of the violation of the last preceding section. 
 
 "2036. Every person who shall, on the Christian Sabbath or Sun- 
 day, be engaged in the running of any single horse, for any bet or 
 wager on the speed of such horse, or for pastime, or for amusement 
 without any bet or wager, or shall be engaged in any cock fight, on 
 any bet or wager, or for pastime, without bet or wager shall, on con- 
 viction thereof, be fined in any sum not exceeding one hundred dol- 
 lars, nor less than twenty dollars. 
 
 "2037. Every person who shall, on the Christian Sabbath or Sun- 
 day, be engaged in any game of brag, bluff, poker, seven-up, three-up, 
 twenty-one, vingtun, thirteen cards, the odd trick, forty-five, whist, or at 
 any other game at cards known by any name now known to the laws, 
 or with any other new name, for any bet or wager on such game, or 
 for amusement without any bet or wager, shall, on conviction thereof, 
 be fined in any sum not less than twenty-five dollars, nor more than 
 fifty dollars. 
 
 "2038. If any person shall be found hunting with a gun, with in- 
 tention to kill game, or shooting for amusement, on the Sabbath day, 
 on conviction thereof, he shall be fined in any sum not less than five 
 nor more than twenty-five dollars for each separate offense. 
 
 "2039. If such offense shall be committed by a minor, under the 
 age of twenty-one years, and it shall be made to appear that the offense 
 was committed by or with the consent or approbation of the parent or 
 guardian of said minor, then such parent or guardian, as aforesaid, 
 shall also be fined according to the provisions of Section 2038. 
 
 "2040. If any person shall be engaged in running a horse-race on 
 the day known as the Christian Sabbath or Sunday, on a bet or wager, 
 or for sport or pastime, with or without such bet or wager, 
 he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction there- 
 of, shall be fined in any sum not less than twenty-five nor more than 
 one hundred dollars." 
 
 "2041. It shall be unlawful for any club, person or persons to en- 
 gage in any game or play of base-ball on the Christian Sabbath or Sun- 
 day. 
 
 "2042. All persons violating the preceding section shall be guilty 
 of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined in any 
 
30 ARKANSAS. 
 
 sum not less than ten dollars, nor more than twenty dollars in each 
 case." (pp. 566-568.) 
 
 A summons, order for a provisional remedy, order for attachment, 
 or for the delivery of property, subpoena, notice, order of arrest or of 
 injunction, may be issued on the Sabbath when it is necessary to pro- 
 tect the rights and interests involved. 
 
 The constitutionality of the Sabbath law of Arkansas was 
 tested in 1850, in the case of Shover v. State. The counts in 
 the indictment were, keeping open a grocery by force of arms 
 and retailing spirits on the Sabbath. 
 
 Chief Justice Johnson, in upholding the constitutionality of 
 
 law, said : 
 
 "If the act is unauthorized by the Constitution, it must arise from 
 the fad that it interferes with the rights of conscience which are se- 
 cured to all by the Declaration of Independence. A portion of thosa 
 rights consists in freedom to worship Almighty God according to the 
 dictat-es of every one's conscience, and in not being compelled to at- 
 tend, erect, or support, any place of worship, or to maintain any min- 
 istry against their consent. The act in question cannot, with any de- 
 gree of propriety, be said to trench upon any one of the rights thus 
 secured. By reserving to every individual the sacred and in-defeasible 
 rights of conscience, the convention most certainly did not intend to 
 leave it in hie power to do suiqIi acts as are evil in themselves a»d 
 necessarily calculated to bring into contempt the most venerable and 
 sacred institution's of the country. 
 
 "Sunday, or the Sabbath, is properly and emphatically called the 
 Lord's day, and is one amongst the first and most sacred institutions 
 of the Christian religion. This system of religion is recognized as con- 
 stituting a part and parcel of the common law, and as sivch all of the 
 institutions growing out of it or, in any way connected with it, in 
 «ase they shall not be found to interfere with the rights of conscience, 
 are entitled to the most profound respect, and can ri^itfully claim the 
 protection of the lawmaking power of the State. We think it will readily 
 be conceded that the practice, against which the act is directed, is a 
 great and crying vice, and that, in view of its exceedingly deleterious 
 effects upon the body politic, there cannot be a doubt that it falls ap- 
 propriately under the cognizance of the law-making power." (Shover 
 V. State, 10 Ark, 259, 1850.) 
 
 In Stockton v. the State in which Stockton was indicted for 
 playing cards on the Sabbath, the Supreme CcuLirt, in affirmiwg 
 the decision of the Circuit Court of Tell County finding him 
 guiltj as indicted, laid stress upon the Divine authority for th@ 
 law. The following language was used : 
 
 "The object of the Statute was to prohibit the desecration of the 
 Sabbath by engaging in the vicious employment of playing cauds on 
 
ARKANSAS. • 31 
 
 that day, which is set apart by Divine appointment, as well as by the 
 law of the land for other and better engagements; and whether the de- 
 fendant play for a wager or amusement, he is alike guilty of a dese- 
 cration of the Sabbath, and consequently of a violation of the law. 
 The playing of cards upon that day is the gist of the offense, and 
 whether the playing be for a wager, or for amusement is not material. 
 No matter what the purpose of the game may be, il is a desecration 
 of the day, and vicious to public morals in its tendencies." (18 Ark. 
 18, 1S5G. 
 
 In 1886 the Supreme Court of Arkansas, in Scales v. State, 
 upheld the constitutionality of the law whether or not it excepts 
 from its operation, cither wholly or in part, those who keep 
 another day. The Court said : 
 
 "This observance of Sunday as a day of refrainment from secular 
 business has always been required of tlxe people generally, without 
 reference to creed, and they continue to so observe it without com- 
 plaint that, as a municipal institution, it violates any of their consti- 
 tutional or religious rights. . . . The law which imposes the penalty 
 operates upon all alike, and interferes with no man's religious belief, 
 for in limiting the prohibition to secular pursuits it leaves religious 
 profession and worship free." (47 Ark. 476.) 
 
 The most of the opinions given by way of interpretation of 
 the law are judicious. The following are sufiftcicMt to show the 
 character of such opinions : 
 
 "When a contract for a sale of land is m.ade on a week day, and 
 a note for the purchase money executed on Sunday, the vendor may 
 recover the purchase money, notwithstanding the invalidity at the 
 note." (Tucker, v. West et al, 29 Ark. 386, 1874.) 
 
 •'Although a contract for the hire of a horse on Sunday is void, 
 the hirer will be liable in tort for any Injury to the horse from misuse 
 or carelessness, and will be held to the highest degi'ee of care." (Stew- 
 art V. Davis. 31 Ark. 518, 1877.) 
 
 "One who keeps a saloon open on the Sabbath is guilty whether he 
 is the owner or proprietor or not." (Marre v. The State, 36 Ark. 
 222, 1880.) 
 
 •'The statute with respect to labor applies to the work of a barber" 
 (State V. Frederick, 45 Ark. 347, 1885.) 
 
 •'The manager of a public theater who sells tickets for, and super- 
 intends an entertainment on Sunday, is guilty of laboring on Sunday 
 within the meaning of section 1883, (2030)." 
 
 •'The statute against open stores applies to butcher sheps." (Petty 
 V. The State, 5S Ark. 1, 1893.) 
 
 'The selection of the first day of the week for putting in new tele- 
 graph instruments at a railroad station is not justified by the fact that 
 there are fewer trains running and as a consequence there is less dan- 
 
32 CONNECTICUT. 
 
 ger of collision than on other days." (Cleary v. The State, 56 Ark. 
 124. 1892.) 
 
 Labor cannot be lawfully performed on the Sabbath merely to add 
 to the accumulations of a business already lucrative. 
 
 There are few States whose Sabbath laws deserve more 
 praise and less criticism than that of Arkansas. The exceptions 
 of section 2032, however, in favor of steamboats and manu- 
 facturing establishments requiring to be kept in continual opera- 
 tion, might easily be taken advantage of for the carrying on of 
 iDOth business and pleasure. 
 
 The ringing deliverances of the Supreme Court in uphold- 
 ing the constitutionality of the statute because the Divine will is 
 back of it and because Christianity is part of the common law 
 are deserving of high praise. 
 
 CONNECTICUT. (1902). 
 
 Chapter 89 of the revised statutes of Connecticut is entitled 
 "Ofifences against Puplic Policy." The sestions relating to the 
 Sabbath are these : 
 
 "1369. Every person who shall do any secular business or labor, 
 except works of necessity or mercy, or keep open any shop, workhouse, 
 or manufacturing or mechanical establishment, or expose any property 
 for sale, or engage in any sport between twelve o'clock Saturday night 
 and twelve o'clock Sunday night, shall be fined not more than fifty dol- 
 lars. 
 
 "1370. Every person who shall be present at any concert of 
 music, dancing, or other public diversion on Sunday, or on the evening 
 thereof shall be fined not more than forty dollars. 
 
 "1371. Prosecutions for violations of the two preceding sections 
 shall be exhibited within one month after the commission of the of- 
 fense. 
 
 "1372. No person who conscientiously believes that the seventh 
 day of the week ought to be observed as the Sabbath, and actually re- 
 frains from secular business and labor on that day, shall be liable to 
 prosecution for performing secular business and labor on the Sabbath, 
 provided he disturbs no other person while attending public worship." 
 (pp. 384, 385.) 
 
 "3132. "No person shaH on Sunday shoot or hunt, or have in pos- 
 session in the open air the implements for shooting, (p. 788.) 
 
 "2703. Every person who by himself, his servant, or his agent, 
 between the hours of twelve o'clock on Saturday night and twelve 
 o'clock on Sunday night next following, shall sell or expose for sale 
 any spirituous or intoxicating liquors, or shall keep open any place of 
 
CONNECTICUT. 33 
 
 any kind or description in which spirituous and intoxicating liquors 
 are at any time sold or exposed for sale, or in which any sports or 
 games of chance are at any time carried on or allowed, or are reputed 
 to be so carried on or allowed, shall be subject to the penalties of 
 section 2712, (a fine of not less than ten nor more than two hundred 
 dollars for the first offense and for each subsequent offense the same 
 fine and imprisonment not less than ten days nor more than six 
 months) ; but this section shall not apply to sales under a druggist's 
 license, (p. 95.) 
 
 The following sections relating to railroads were added in 1SS7: 
 
 "3749. No railroad company shall run any train on any road oper- 
 ated by it within this State, between sunrise and sunset on Sunday, 
 except for necessity or mercy; provided, that it may run trains carry- 
 ing the United States mail, and such other trains or classes of trains 
 as may be authorized by the Railroad Commissioners on application 
 made to them on the ground that the same are required by the public 
 ■necessity, or for the preservation of freight. 
 
 "3750. No such company shall permit the handling, the loading, 
 or the unloading, of freight on any road operated by it, or at any of 
 its depots or stations within this State, between sunrise and sunset 
 on Sundaj', except from necessity or mercy. 
 
 "3751. Every such company which shall violate any of the pro- 
 visions of the two preceding sections shall forfeit to the State the 
 sum of two hundred and fifty dollars for each violation. 
 
 "3752. No such company shall transport passengers, on Sunday, 
 upon any train deemed necessary according to the intention of section 
 ■3749, for less than the highest regular fare collected on week-days, 
 provided that commutation, season, and mileage tickets may be used 
 on Sunday. No such company shall issue or accept for any travel on 
 said day excursion or other special bargain tickets. Every company 
 which shall violate any provision of this section shall forfeit to the 
 State fifty dollars for each violation." (p. 934.) 
 
 In 1893 the following relating to street railways was enacted: 
 
 "No law affecting travel, business or labor on Sunday or the oper- 
 ation on Sunday of any railroad or railway, shall apply to any railroad 
 company or street railway company so as to prohibit or limit the oper- 
 ation on Sunday of electi'ic cars." (pp. 960, 961.) 
 
 "3753. The provisions of Sections 3749, 3750, 3751 and 3752 
 shall not affect statutes which prohibit secular work or recreation on 
 Sunday, except so far as they may be found in their operation to be 
 inconsistent with them." (p. 934.) 
 
 The Stipreme Court of Connectictit has upheld the law in 
 the following terms : 
 
 "The prohibition on Sunday, of any sport or recreation which in- 
 terferes with the preservation of public peace and order, or the enjoy- 
 ment of appropriate and religious observance of that day, is clearly 
 
34 
 
 DEL A WARE. 
 
 ■within the power of the legislature." (State v. Miller, 69 Conn. 373,. 
 1896.) 
 
 The interpretation of che law as it applies to contracts made 
 on the first day of the week has frequently been given by the 
 Supreme Court of this State. The following are the most im- 
 portant opinions relating to this matter : 
 
 A note made payable on Sunday, in express terms, is void, because- 
 it is a contract to do an unlawful thing. (Avery v. Stewart, 2 Day 
 73, 1816.) 
 
 A loan of money made on the Lord's day cannot be recovered. 
 (Finney v. Donahue, 35 Conn. 216, 1868.) 
 
 A contract made on Sabbath is void, although the price of the pur- 
 chase may not be paid till Monday. If there is fraud the purchaser 
 cannot recover. (Grant v. McGrath, 56, Conn. 335, 1888.) 
 
 If negotiations are begun on Sabbath which result in a written 
 guaranty on another day, the contract is valid. (Tyler v. Waddington, 
 58 Conn. 376, 1890.) 
 
 If personal injuries are suffered by persons riding on street cars 
 for pleasure on Sabbath, such injuries being the result of the negli- 
 gence of the street car company's servants, they can recover. (66 
 Conn. 274, 1895.) 
 
 The law of this State is defective in permitting those who 
 observe the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath to engage in 
 both business and labor on the Lord's day. It is common to 
 permit labor by such persons, but to permit business is unusual. 
 
 The law is defective also in the liberty it allows railroad and 
 street car companies. In other respects it is an excellent statute 
 and is well sustained by the courts. 
 
 DELAWARE. (1893). 
 
 Chapter 131 of the statutes of Delaware is entitled "Offences 
 against Religion, Morality and Decency." Section 4 relates to 
 "Sabbath breaking." It is as follows : 
 
 "If any person shall perform any worldly employment, labor, or 
 business, on the Sabbath day, (works of necessity and charity ex- 
 cepted), he shall be fined four dollars, and on failure to pay such fine 
 and costs, shall be imprisoned not exceeding twenty-four hours." 
 
 "If any carrier, pedler, wagoner, or driver of any public stage, or 
 carriage, or any carter, butcher, or drover, with his horse, pack, 
 wagon, stage, carriage, cart, or drove, shall travel, or drive, upon the 
 Sabbath day; or if any retailer of goods shall expose the same to sale 
 on the Sabbath; he shall be fined eight dollars, and on failure to pay 
 such fine and costs shall be imprisoned not exceeding twenty-four 
 
DERAWARE. 35 
 
 hours. Any justice of the peace may stop any such person so travel- 
 ing OH the Sabbath, and detain him until the next day." 
 
 "If any person shall be guilty of fishing, fowling, horse-racing 
 cock-fighting, or hunting game on the Sabbath day, he shall be fined 
 four dollars, and on failure to pay such fine and costs, shall be im- 
 prisoned as aforesaid." 
 
 "If any number of persons shall assemple to game, play or dance, 
 on the Sabbath day, and shall engage, or assist, in such game, play or 
 dance, every such person shall be fined four dollars, and on failure to 
 pay such fine and costs, shall be imprisoned as aforesaid." 
 
 "Any justice of the peace of the county shall have jurisdiction and 
 cognizance of the offenses mentioned in this section." (p. 953.) 
 
 In 1S44 the Court of Errors and Appeals held that the furnishing 
 of liquor to guests by an inn keeper is not a violation of law, but such 
 inn keeper may not keep an open bar and allow persons to assemble 
 in the bar-room to drink and tipple and profane the sanctity of the 
 day, and by their evil example destroy the morals of the community 
 and the best interests of societJ^ '"The keeper of an inn, tavern, or 
 house of entertainment, who conducts hin's-elf in such a manner. . . 
 as profanes the Lord's day, or violates public order and decorum, or 
 shocks the religious sense or feelings of the neighborhood, is guilty 
 of a nuisance at common law, and may be indicted, fined, imprisoned, 
 and his house suppressed, according to the aggravated nature or enor- 
 mity of his offense." (4 Del. 132, Hall v. the State.) 
 
 As to contracts made on the Sabbath the following decision was 
 rendered in 1897: "In all contracts made on the Sabbath, as the 
 parties are pari delicto, neither can assert rights thereunder; the 
 policy of the law is that of absolute non-action. It leaves the parties 
 exactly where they happen to be. The result is that the contract being 
 executory is for all practical purposes void. Yet if one person re- 
 ceives the benefit of the labor of another thereunder, the law places the 
 duty upon him to pay for it." (Spahn v. Willman, Pennewill's Del. 
 Reports, Vol. 1, p. 125.) A note made on Sabbath, but delivered on an- 
 other day is valid. (Terry v. Piatt, 1 Penn. Del. Rep., Vol. 1. p. 185.) 
 
 The law of this State is hrief but comprehensive. The 
 penalty, however, is mtich too light and has a weakening effect. 
 The judicial opinions are few, but what there are give good sup- 
 port to the law. 
 
 FLORIDA. (1S92). 
 
 The sections of the F'lorida law relating to the Sabbath are 
 entitle^d, "Sunday law," and are as follows: 
 
 "2638. Whoever follows any pursuit, business or trade on Suntlay 
 either by manual labor or with animal or mechanical power, except 
 
36 FLORIDA. 
 
 tbe same be work of necessity, shall be punished by a fine not exceed- 
 ing fifty dollars. 
 
 "2639. Whoever keeps open store or disposes of any wares, mer- 
 chandise, goods or chattels on Sunday, or sells or barters the same, 
 shall be punished by a fine not exceeding fifty dollars. In cases of 
 emergency or necessity, however, merchants, shop-keepers, and others 
 may dispose of the comforts and necessaries of life to customers, with- 
 out keeping open doors. 
 
 "2640. Whoever employs his apprentice or servant in labor or 
 other business on Sunday, except it be in the ordinary household busi- 
 ness of daily necessity, or other work of necessity or charity, shall be 
 punished by a fine not exceeding ten dollars for every such offense. 
 
 "2641. Whoever uses firearms by hunting game or firing at tar- 
 gets upon Sunday shall be punished by imprisonment not exceeding 
 twenty days, or by fine not exceeding twenty-five dollars." 
 
 Section 1025 makes void the execution on Sabbath of any writ, 
 order, judgment or deciee, except when it appears on the sworn tes- 
 timony of two respectable witnesses, that any person liable to any such 
 writ, etc., intends to escape from the State under cover of protection 
 of Sunday. 
 
 Section 3037 provides for the proper oljservance of the Sabbath in 
 the State Prison, and for the instruction of the inmates in their moral 
 and religious duties. 
 
 "Fishing for shad between sundown on Saturday afternoon and 
 sunrise on Monday morning of every week is punishable by a fine not 
 exceeding one hundred dollars, and by confiscation of the boat and 
 fishing tackle used in such unlawful acts." (p. S48.) 
 
 The Sabbath law of Florida is brief and pointed and has 
 many excellent features. The penalties generally are adeqtiate. 
 Few cases have reached the Supreme Court and in the opinions 
 rendered there is btit little relating to the great points considered 
 in thL^ exhibit. 
 
 IOWA. (iS88 1902). 
 
 Chapter 12, section 5438, of the criminal code of Iowa is 
 eiatitled "Breach of Sabbath." It is as follows: 
 
 "If any person be found on the first day of the week, commonly 
 called Sabbath, engaged in any riot, fighting, or offering to fight, or 
 hunting, shooting, carrying fire-arms, fishing, horse-racing, dancing, or 
 in any manner disturbing any worshipping assembly, or private 
 family; or in buying or selling property of any kind, or in any labor, 
 the work of necessity and charity only excepted, every person so of- 
 fending shall, on conviction, be fined in a sum not more than five dol- 
 la-^ nor less than oae dollar, to be recovered before any Justice of the 
 
TOW A. 37 
 
 peace in the county where such offense is committed, and shaU be 
 committed to the jail of said county until the said fine, together with 
 the costs of prosecution, shall be paid; but nothing herein contained 
 shall be construed to extend to those who conscientiously observe the 
 seventh day of the week, as the Sabbath, or to prevent persons trav- 
 eling, or families emigrating, from pursuing their journey, or keepers 
 of toll-bridges, toll-gates, and ferry-men from attending the same." 
 (pp. 1574, 1575.) 
 
 Other sections declare that the issuing and serving of attachments, 
 and of processes, and the issuing of executions, on the Sabbath, are 
 permissible when necessary. 
 
 When the case of Davis v. Fish was l)cfore the District 
 Cotirt the charge was given the Jtiry and the verdict rendered 
 on the Sabbath. The case was carried to the Supreme Court, 
 \vhich declared such proceedings to be utterly void. The Court 
 said : 
 
 "A day so sacred, set apart for rest by the voice of wisdom, ex- 
 perience, and nec96sity; a day established by laws both human and 
 divine, for public worship and private devotion, should be held in es- 
 pecial veneration by legal tribunals. Courts of justice should at least, 
 by their practice and decisions, maintain the sanctity of that time- 
 honored, and heaven-appointed institution." (1 Iowa, 406, 1S4S.) 
 
 In this opinion the Court recognizes, not only the sacred 
 character of the day, but also the fact that it is an institution of 
 Divine appointment. 
 
 While there are no ether decisions in this State which deal 
 with the constitutional basis of the law, there are a number that 
 have value in the proper interpretation of the law. 
 
 'Contracts made on the Sabbath day are void. The general rule 
 is that a contract made in violation of a statute and against the policy 
 of the State, whether malum prohibitum or malum in se, is void, and 
 cannot be enforced by action. Contracts for the sale of property do 
 not come within the exceptions and are therefore illegal. The plea 
 that as the statute does not in express terms prohibit such contracts 
 but only im.poses a penalty for making them, they cannot be treated 
 as void, will not hold. The authorities are abundant that a penalty 
 for an act implies a prohibition.' (Pike v. King, IG la. 49, 1864.) 
 'Promissory notes executed on the Lord's day are void. This rule holds 
 good with reference to notes executed in other States unless it is 
 shown that the laws in such States are different from those of Iowa.' 
 (Sayer v. Wheeler, 31 la. 112, 1870.) 
 
 "Violators of the Sabbath law frequently plead the illegality of 
 contracts made on tke Sabbath to escape certain obligations. Of 
 course those who do this have no regard for the sacredness of the 
 
38 IOWA. 
 
 day, but after violating the law in carrying on worldly business with 
 a neighbor plead the intervention of the law to aid them in wronging 
 that neighbor. The Iowa records present a number of such cases. 
 The following are specimens: Henry Johns sold a piece of land to 
 Mary Skeels. The contract was drawn and delivered on the Sabbath, 
 but bears date of another day. Mary Skeels sold the land to Mr. 
 Bailey who immediately entered into possession. Johns sought to re- 
 cover the land. His only plea was that the contract was made on the 
 Sabbath and was therefore void. The Circuit Court of Grundy County 
 awarded him possession of the land, but this was reversed by the Su- 
 preme Court. (45 la. 241, 1876.) 
 
 A case of a different kind was that of Gunderson v. Richardson, 
 involving a horse trade. Two men traded horses on the Sabbath. One 
 of them afterwards felt that he had been cheated. The Supreme 
 Court held that he could not recover damages. Both parties were ac- 
 tive participants in the violation of the law and the law leaves them 
 where it finds them. (56 Iowa, 56, 1881.) 
 
 The following case came before the Supreme Court in 1882: 
 
 A man was riding along the highway on a business errand. A 
 dog frightened his horse and he was injured. He brought suit for 
 damages. The plea was made by the defendant that he could not re- 
 cover because he was violating the law. The court decided otherwise. 
 
 A railroad company incurs the usual penalty for running trains on 
 the Sabbath, and if an accident occurs whereby damage Is done, lia- 
 bility will be determined by the same rules as if it had occurred on a 
 secular day. (Tingle v. C. B. & Q. R. Co. 60 la. 333, 1882.) 
 
 The following case shows to what extent scoundrels will go in 
 pleading the Sabbath law to shield themselves from just punishment. 
 John H. Sherwood was tried and convicted of the crime of forgery be- 
 lore the Pottawattamie District Court. The forged note was drawn on 
 a week day but bore the date of Sabbath. A part of the defense was 
 that as the note tore the date of Sabbath it was therefore void and 
 could not be used in evidence. The Supreme Court said: "A note 
 made on Sunday, but in fact delivered on a week day Is not void. . . . 
 Now, while it is true that a note in fact made and delivered on Sun- 
 day is void, and could not be used in evidence, still, in a civil action, 
 by making proper averments touching a mistake in the date, or that 
 it was in fact delivered on a week day such a note would be admissible 
 in evidence, and on pi'oof that it was made or delivered on a week day, 
 it would be the basis of a legal liability against a genuine maker. . . . 
 We think that the false making of an instrument of this character, 
 even though it bear date of Sunday, may be a forgery under our 
 
 statute To hold otherwise would be not only in violation of the 
 
 spirit and working of the statute, but would render the business of the 
 forger profitable and successful. All he would have to do to escape 
 
10 WA. 39 
 
 liability would be to date the instrument forged on Sunday." (State 
 V. Sherwood, 90 la. 550, 1894.) 
 
 The opinions here quoted bring to light the fact that the 
 Sabbath law is often violated in the making of contracts and no 
 effort made to punish the guilty parties. But if either of them 
 wishes to break the contract his plea is its illegality because made 
 on the Sabbath. Moreover it appears that disl*Dnest people take 
 advantage of this law to cheat the unsuspicious and then take 
 refuge behind the fact of the illegality of the contract. The law 
 should be so framed as to catch all such rogues. 
 
 The Supreme Court of Iowa makes the following statement 
 of a question that has been before the courts of many States and 
 variously decided : 
 
 "If two persons are engaged in the violation of the Sunday law, 
 and one is injured by the negligence or carelessness of the other, may 
 the injured party recover if he did not otherwise, by his own negli- 
 gence, contribute to produce the injury?" The Court answers as fol- 
 lows: "It may be conceded that the authorities upon this are in con- 
 flict: that the earlier cases in some of the New England States, as 
 well as many later cases, have gone to great extremes in holding that 
 parties who were injured while engaged in violating the Sunday law 
 could not recover for injuries carelessly or negligently inflicted upon 
 them by others. The unreasonableness of these views has been very 
 justly criticized by all leading text writers upon the subject, and has 
 met with the condemnation of the courts elsewhere. . . . We do not 
 think that there is any sufficient reason why, if two persons are en- 
 gaged in violating the Sunday law, and without any contributing cause 
 one is injured, that he should be denied recovery. ... To so hold 
 would be offering a premium to negligence, and holding out as an in- 
 ducement for carelessness the fact that Sunday violaters owed no 
 
 duty to each other as to the exercise of care to prevent accidents 
 
 Why should the courts add to the violation of this law a penalty which 
 the law itself has not affixed? If one violates the Sunday law he is 
 amendable to the State — is subject to the punishment inflicted by 
 statute." (Gross v. Miller, 93 la. 72, 1894.) 
 
 The question whether subscriptions for religious purposes, 
 taken on Sabbath, are binding, has been before the Supreme 
 Cotirt of Iowa, in a form similar to that in which it came before 
 the Supreme Court of Indiana. It is worthy of remark that this 
 question usually is raised, not by some one who is zealous for the 
 law, but by some one who has given a subscription to help pay 
 a church debt or for some other religious purpose, and after- 
 
40 KiNSAS 
 
 wards tries to avoid meeting his obligation. Such a case came 
 before the Supreme Court of Iowa in 1899. The Court said: 
 
 "The custom of taking offerings on the first clay of the week has 
 existed from time immemorial, and no one has supposed this to be 
 prohibited by statute. If not, ought receiving promises for the pay- 
 ment of larger sums be deemed condemned thereby? Otherwise the 
 deacons or others in passing the box or hat. and the minister in direct- 
 ing this to be done, are amenable to the penalties of the law 
 
 Taking collections and subscriptions to carry on the work of a relig- 
 ious organization may not, strictly speaking, be deemed a part of re- 
 ligious worship; but these are means for its support, and come within 
 the exception of the statute prohibiting any labor, except that of ne- 
 cessity or charity." (First M. E. Church v. Donnell, 110 la. 5.) 
 
 The law of this State would be improved by dividing it intO' 
 sections. As it stands the exception in favor of seventh day 
 keepers might be understood as giving them permission to do on 
 the Lord's day everything enumerated in the law, even including 
 rioting and fighting. A further improvement would be made 
 by specifically prohibiting amusements. The penalty is too 
 small. The opinions are of a high order of merit. 
 
 KANSAS. (1901). 
 
 Article 7 of Chapter 31 of the Kansas Code is entitled 
 "Crimes against Public Morals and Decency." The sections on 
 the Sabbath follow : 
 
 "2356. Every person who shall either labor himself, or compel his 
 apprentice, servant or any other person under his charge or control, to 
 labor or perform any work other than the household oiSces of daily 
 necessity, or other works of necessity or charity, on the first day of 
 the week, commonly called Sunday, shall be deemed guilty of a misde- 
 meanor, and fined not exceeding twenty-five dollars. 
 
 "2257. The last section shall not extend to any person who is a 
 member of a religious society, by whom any other than the first day 
 of the week is observed as the Sabbath, so that he observes such Sab- 
 bath, nor to prohibit any ferry-man from crossing passengers on any 
 day in the week. 
 
 "2258. Every person wlio shall be convicted of horse-racing, cock- 
 fighting, or playing at cards or game of any kind, on the first day of 
 the week, commonly called Sunday, shall be deemed guilty of a misde- 
 meanor, and fined not exceeding fifty dollars. 
 
 "2259. Every person who shall expose for sale any goods, wares or 
 merchandise, or shall keep open any ale or porter house, grocery or 
 tippling shop, or shall sell or retail any fermented or distilled liquor, on 
 
MAINE. 41" 
 
 the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, shall, on conviction, 
 be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined not exceeding fifty dol- 
 lars. 
 
 "2260. The last section shall not be construed to prevent the sale- 
 of any drugs or medicines, provisions or other articles, of immediate 
 necessity, (p. 478). 
 
 "2439. Every person who shall engage in hunting or shooting on 
 the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, shall be deemed 
 guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction be fined in any sum not 
 less than five nor more than twenty dollars." 
 
 The constitutionality of the Sabbath law was passed upon by the 
 Supreme Court of Kansas in 1898 but without argument. The Court 
 merely declared that the legislature has the power to make such laws 
 as are necessary to preserve the public health and protect the public 
 safetj', and that this statute is within the municipal and police regula- 
 tions. 
 
 As to the interpretation of the law the Supreme Court has held that 
 the delivery of milk by a dairyman is a work of necessity, since the 
 cows must be milked, and the milk disposed of while fresh. It is a 
 work of necessity to customers, as much so as furnishing medicines to 
 the sick, or food to guests at a hotel. (City of Topeka v. Hempstead. 
 58 Kan. 328, 1897). 
 
 As in Iowa so in Kansas the Supreme Court holds that any one in- 
 jured while working on the Sabbath and it is shown that the injury 
 is the result of the negligence of another he may recover damages. 
 (Kansas City v. Orr 62, Kan. 61, 1900.) 
 
 It has been held by the District Court of Shawnee County that 
 since the law of Kansas is similar to that of Missouri the opinion 
 rendered in that State declaring baseball and other athletic sports to be 
 lawful on the Sabbath declares the proper construction of the law in 
 this State. 
 
 If the law as to games is rightly construed this is the princi- 
 pal point of weakness. As courts do not often reverse them- 
 selves the surest remedy is a statute making base ball and other 
 sports unlawful. 
 
 MAINE. (1903). 
 
 Chapter 125 of the statutes of ^Nlaine is entitled "Disturbance 
 of religious meetings and observance of the Lord's day." The 
 sections relating to the latter are the following: 
 
 "Sec. 25. Whoever, on the Lord's day, keeps open his shop, work- 
 house, warehouse, or place of business, travels, or does any work, labor, 
 or business on that day, except work of necessity or charity; uses any 
 sport, game or recreation; or is present at any dancing, public diver- 
 
42 MAINE. 
 
 sion, show or entertainment, encouraging the same, shall be punished 
 by fine not exceeding ten dollars. 
 
 "26. If an innholder or victualler, on the Lord's day, suffers any 
 persons, except travelers, strangers, or lodgers, to abide in his house, 
 yard, or field, drinking or spending their time idly, at play or doing any 
 secular business, except works of charity or necessity he sh.an be pun- 
 ished by fine not exceeding four dollars for each person thus suffered to 
 abide; and if after conviction he is again guilty, by fine not exceeding 
 ten dollars for each offense, and upon a third conviction, he shall also 
 be incapable of holding any license; and every person so abiding shall 
 be fined not exceeding four dollars for each offense. 
 
 "27. The Lord's day includes the time between twelve o'clock on 
 Saturday night and twelve o'clock on Sunday night. 
 
 "28. No person conscientiously believing that the seventh day of 
 the week ought to be observed as the Sabbath, and actually refraining 
 from secular business and labor on that day, is liable to said penalties 
 for doing such business on the first day of the week, if he does not dis- 
 turb other persons." (pp. 933, 934). 
 
 Chapter 82, Section 115. "No deed, contract, receipt, or other in- 
 s,trument in wMting, is void because dated on the Lord's day without 
 other proof than the date of its having been made and delivered on that 
 day." 
 
 "Sec. 116. No person who receives a valuable consideration for a 
 contract, expressed or implied, made on the Lord's day, shall defend any 
 action upon such contract on the ground that it was so made, until he 
 restores such consideration." 
 
 "Chapter 30, Sec. 27. Sunday is a close time, on which it is not 
 lawful to hunt, kill or destroy game or birds of any kind, under the 
 penalties imposed therefor during other clos.e times; but the 
 j)enalties already imposed for violation of the Sunday laws are not re- 
 pealed or diminished." 
 
 "Chapter 81, Section 81. No person shall serve or execute any civil 
 process on the Lord's day; but such service is void, and the person exe- 
 cuting it is liable in damages to the party aggrieved, as if he had no 
 •process." 
 
 Formerly the law of Maine uncompromisingly made all 
 contracts entered into on the Sabbath void. In the case of 
 Joseph G. Towle v. James Larabee, the contention was about 
 the payment of a note made on the Lord's day, given and re- 
 ■ ceived as the consideration for a horse, the contract of sale being 
 ■entered into and the horse delivered on that day. The Supreme 
 Court held that 
 
 "The law will not assist a party to enforce a contract made in 
 violation of its own provisions. There can be no excuse for any at- 
 tempt to destroy by a forced construction of language the effect of an 
 >ena.ctment so suited to enable man to derive the benefit designed to be 
 
MAINE. 43 
 
 bestowed upon him by Providence, in the consecration of the Lord's 
 day to the duty of doing good and of seeldng endless happiness, in ac- 
 cordance with the precepts of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
 (26 Me. 464, 1847). 
 
 In the case Header v. White it was held that a loan of money 
 made on the Lord's day is void, and that the promise to pay cannot be 
 enforced. The Court however regretted that this was so. "The moral 
 obligation to repay money loaned is the same, whether the loan be 
 made on one day or on another. It is an unfortunate condition of 
 the law when the violator of its commands is rewarded by it for such 
 violation. The defendant and the plaintiff are alike guilty of a viola- 
 tion of law; the former in soliciting the loan, the latter in yielding 
 to such solicitation. Both are liable to the penalty provided by the 
 statute. But the defendant, while guilty with the plaintiff, and equally 
 amenable to the penalties provided by the statute, is rewarded for his 
 wrong doing by the refusal of the law to aid in the enforcement of a 
 debt justly due. He is absolved from an indebtedness created at his 
 own instance; while his associate in guilt, who yielded to his wishes, 
 is liable to a double penalty, that inflicted by the law, and that arising 
 from the non-payment of money loaned in addition to the sorrows of 
 a regretful conscience. Juvenal indignantly says: 
 
 "Multi 
 
 Committunt eadem; diverse crimina fato; 
 
 Ille crucem pretium sceleris tulit,*hic diadema." 
 
 So, now of two criminals guilty of the same offense, one is punished 
 and the other rewarded by the law which creates the offense." (66 
 Me. 90, 1877). 
 
 A study of the laws of the different States and of the cases which 
 have come before the Courts show that no little wrong has been done 
 by giving the law this construction, and the tendency has doubtless 
 been to render such a law. odious. The Legislature of Maine provided 
 a remedy for the evil by the enactment of section 116 of Chapter 82. 
 
 While the law of Maine forbids the service of a civil process on the 
 Lord's day it allows the service of a criminal process. 
 
 A promissory note given on Sabbath is void, but if signed on that 
 •day and not delivered till another day it is valid. 
 
 A jury may reach a verdict on Sabbath and seal it up to be record- 
 ■ed on the next court day. 
 
 The law of this State as thus interpreted by the Cotirts is 
 ■deserving of high praise. The exception, however, in favor of 
 those who observe Saturday goes too far in allowing them to do 
 business as well as to labor on the Lord's dav. 
 
44 MARYLAND. 
 
 MARYLAND. (1903), 
 
 "Sabbath Ereaking" is the title of the sections of article 27 
 of the Maryland Code relating to "Crimes and Punishments." 
 These sections are as follows : 
 
 "365. No person whatsoever shall Avork or do any bodily labor on 
 the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday; and no person having chil- 
 dren or servants shall command, or wittingly or willingly suffer any 
 of them to do any manner of work or labor on the Lord's day (works- 
 of necessity and charity always excepted), nor shall suffer or permit 
 any children or servants to profane the Lord's day by gaming, fishing, 
 fowling, hunting or unlawful pastime or recreation; and every person 
 transgressing this section and being thereof convicted before a justice 
 of the peace, shall forfeit five dollars, to be applied to the use of the 
 county. 
 
 "366. No person in this State shall sell, dispose of, barter, or, if a 
 dealer in any one or more of the articles of merchandise in this section 
 mentioned, shall give away on the Sabbath day, commonly called Sun- 
 day, any tobacco, cigars, candy, soda or mineral waters, spirituous or 
 fermented liquors, cordials, lager beer, wine, cider or any other goods, 
 wares or merchandise whatsoever; and any person violating any one 
 of the provisions of this section shall be liable to indictment in any 
 Court in this State having criminal jurisdiction, and upon conviction 
 thereof shall be fined a sum not less than twenty nor more than fifty 
 dollars, in the discretion of the court, for the first offense, and if con- 
 victed a second time for a violation of this section, the person or per- 
 sons so offending shall be fined a sum not less than fifty nor more than 
 five hundred dollars, and be imprisoned for not less than ten nor more 
 than thirty days, in the discretion of the court, and his, her or their 
 license, if any were issued, shall be declared null and void by 
 the judge of said court; and it shall not be lawful for such person or 
 persons, to obtain another license for the period of twelve months from 
 the time of such conviction, nor shall a license be obtained by any oth- 
 er person or persons to carry on such business on the premises or else- 
 where, if the person, so as aforesaid convicted, has any interest what- 
 ever therein, or shall derive any profit whatever therefrom; and in 
 case of being convicted more than twice for a violation of this sec- 
 tion, such person or persons on each occasion shall be fmprisoned for 
 not less than thirty nor more than sixty days, and fined a sum not less 
 than double that imposed on such person or persons on the last preced- 
 ing conviction; and his, her or their license, if any were issued, shall 
 be declared null and void by the court, and no new license shall be is- 
 sued to such person or persons for a period of two years from the time 
 of such conviction, nor to any one else to carry on said business where- 
 in he or she is in anywise interested, as before provided for the second 
 violation of the provisions of this section; one half of all the fines ta 
 
3fABYLAND. 45 
 
 be imposed under this section shall be paid to the State, and the other 
 ■half to the informer; this section is not to apply to milk or ice dealers 
 in supplying their customers, or to apothecaries when putting up bona 
 fide prescriptions. 
 
 "367. It shall not be lawful to keep open or use any dancing-sa- 
 loon, opera house, ten pin alley, barber saloon or ball alley within the 
 State on the Sabbath day, commonly called Sunday; and any person or 
 persons, or body politic or corporate, who shall violate any provisions 
 •of this section, or cause or knowingly permit the same to be violated 
 by a person or persons in his, her or its employ, shall be liable to in- 
 dictment in any court of this State having criminal jurisdiction, and 
 upon conviction thereof, shall be fined a sum not less than fifty dollars 
 nor more than one hundred dollars, in the discretion of the court, for 
 the first offense; and if convicted a second time for a violation of thisi 
 section, the person or persons, or body politic or corporate, shall be 
 fined a sum not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dol- 
 lars; and if a natural person, shall be imprisoned not less than ten nor 
 more than thirty days in the discretion of the court; and in the case 
 of any conviction or convictions under this section, subsequent to the 
 second, such person or persons, body politic or corporate, shall be fined 
 OJi each occasion a sum at least double that imposed upon him, her, 
 them or it on the last preceding conviction; and if a natural person, 
 shall be imprisoned not less than thirty nor more than sixty days, in 
 the discretion of the court; all fines to be imposed under this section 
 shall be paid to the State." (pp. 690-692). 
 
 , Chapter 273, 290, relates to hunting, etc., and is as follows: "No 
 person whatsoever shall hunt with dog or gun on the Lord's day, com- 
 monly called Sunday, nor shall profane the Lord's day by gunning, hunt- 
 ing, fowling, or by shooting or exploding any gun, pistol or firearm of 
 any kind, or by any other unlawful recreation or pastime, and any per- 
 son violating the provisions of this section shall, for every such offense, 
 upon conviction before any justice of the peace for the county, forfeit 
 the gun, pistol or other firearm used in such violation, and be fined not 
 less than five dollars nor more than thirty dollars, one-half such fine 
 to go to the person causing the prosecution to be instituted, the other 
 half to the school fund of the county, and upon failure or refusal to 
 pay such fine, and the costs of prosecution, shall be committed to the 
 jail of said county, and confined therein until said fine and costs are 
 paid, not exceeding in any case a period of twenty days; provided, that 
 any perso» so convicted shall have the right of appeal to the Circuit 
 Court of said county, as in other cases, wherein said justices of the 
 peace have final jurisdiction." 
 
 As early as 1834 a case came before the Court of Appeals in 
 which the Divine warrant for Sabbath laws was clearly main- 
 tained. This was the case of Kiigour v. Mil£s and Goldsmitk, 
 relating- to the non-fulfillment of a contract because the dav s^ 
 
46 MARYLAyD. 
 
 for its fulfillment was the Sabbath. The defendants in their plea 
 used the term "Sabbath day." Counsel for the appellant took 
 the ground that "the averment that the day was the Sabbath," 
 does not necessarily mean that it was Sunday. The Court gave 
 the following opinion : 
 
 "The efforts of the Counsel to escape from these obvious diflficul- 
 ties, by taking a distinction between the 'Sabbath' (as the day is de- 
 scribed in the plea), and the 'Lord's day,' as mentioned in the act of 
 Assembly, or Sunday, cannot avail. The Sabbath is emphatically the 
 day of rest, and the day of rest is the 'Lord's day,' or Christian Sunday. 
 Ours is a Christian community, and a day set apart as the day of rest, 
 is the day consecrated by the resurrection of our Saviour."- (G. and J. 
 6, 268). 
 
 The constitutionality of this law was put to the test in 1894 
 in the case of Judefind v. State. This case came before the 
 Circuit Court for Kent County, and was carried to the Court of 
 Appeals. The argument against the constitutionality of the law 
 was that it is in violation of the first paragraph of the fourteenth 
 amendment of the Constitution of the United States and of article 
 thirty-six of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of Maryland. 
 The clause in the Constitution of the United States referred to 
 declares that "No State shall make or enforce any law which 
 shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the 
 United States ; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, 
 liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any 
 person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." 
 The clause in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of ^Maryland 
 appealed to declares it to be the duty of every man to worship 
 God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, that 
 all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious 
 liberty, that "no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his 
 person or estate on account of his religious persuasion, profession 
 or practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb 
 the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe the 
 laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or 
 religious rights." 
 
 Judge Boyd i-n delivering the opinion of the court said : 
 "We have not the slightest hesitation in announcing that the 
 law complained of is not in conflct with the constitution of the United 
 
 States or of Maryland There have been numerous decisions in 
 
 this country as well as elsewhere, sustaining such laws, and we have no 
 desire to be the exception to the general rule. 
 
MARYLAND. ' 47 
 
 "Nature, experience, and observation suggest the propriety and ne- 
 cessity of one day of rest, and the day generally adopted is Sunday. 
 
 "There are and always will be, honest differences of opinion as to 
 how Sunday should be spent, but the advantages of having a weekly 
 day of rest, 'from a mere physical and political standpoint,' are too ap- 
 parent to permit us to doubt the propriety of having reasonable laws 
 to regulate work on that day. Article thirty-six of our Declaration of 
 Rights guarantees religious liberty; but the members of the dis- 
 tinguished body that adopted that Constitution never supposed they 
 were giving a death blow to Sunday laws by inserting that Article. 
 Those laws do not prohibit or interfere with the worship of God on 
 any day other than Sunday, nor do they compel any one to worship on 
 
 Sunday If the Christian religion is, incidentally or otherwise, 
 
 benefited or fostered by having this day of rest, as it undoubtedly is, 
 there is all the more reason for the enforcement of laws that help to 
 preserve it. Whilst the courts have generally sustained Sunday laws as 
 'civil regulations,' their decisions will have no less weight if they are 
 shown to be in accordance with divine law as well as humsfn." (78 
 Md. 510, 1894). 
 
 In Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad Company v. 
 Lehman and Brother, cattle belonging to the plaintiffs were received 
 from the B. & 0. Railroad Company by the P. W. & B. Railroad Com- 
 pany to be transported over its road. An action was brought by the 
 plaintiffs against the P. W. & B. Railroad Company upon the common 
 liability of the latter as a common carrier, to recover damages result- 
 ing from an alleged delay in the transportation of the cattle. The cattle 
 were received for shipment on Sabbath afternoon and detained till 
 Monday morning. 
 
 The Court held that the carrying of the cattle on the Lord's day 
 was a work of necessity and that the road was liable for damages. The 
 Court said: 
 
 "Most, if not all, of the States of the Union have what are famil- 
 iarly known as Sunday laws, and while they may differ in their phrase- 
 ology and the penalties imposed, they are substantially the same in 
 their general scope and provision; — all looking to keep the day sacred, 
 
 and as one of rest from secular employments In this Court we 
 
 have had no case analogous to the present; but, looking to what has 
 been decided elsewhere, we have no doubt in concluding that our Sun- 
 day law, as found in the Code, Art. 30, Sec. 178, has no application to 
 this case whatever." (56 Md. 209, 1881). 
 
 Inquests by coroner's juries, and commitments by coroner's mag- 
 istrates of accused persons to jail, are not violations of the law. (74 
 Md. 153, 1891). 
 
 JMaryland has had its share of cases in which violaters of 
 the l-aw have attempted to escape obHgations or punishment be- 
 cause contracts made on the Sabbath are void. The case of 
 
48 MICHIGAN. 
 
 Haack v. Knights of Liberty Social and Liberty Club, is in 
 -point. Haack was treasurer of the Club, and had money in his 
 hands obtained from the sale of liquor on the Sabbath, the club 
 existing partly for the sale of liquor and cigars, and furnishing 
 entertainment on the Sabbath. Mr. Haack refused to deliver the 
 money to the Clufo on the ground that these sales and entertain- 
 ments were illegal. The Court said : 
 
 "We do not think the defendant should be allowed to escape lia- 
 bility in the case, upon any such pretexts The laws which the 
 
 State has enacted to secure the due and orderly observance of Sunday, 
 must, of course, be enforced, and so construed as to give them full ef- 
 fect, but not at the expense of all the rules of common honesty." (76 
 Md. 429, 1892). 
 
 The law of this State is among the very best. It is clear 
 and specific in its prohibitions, and is forcefully sustained by the 
 Supreme Court as resting on solid constitutional ground. 
 
 MICHIGAN. (1892). 
 
 Chapter 54 of the Michigan statutes is entitled ''Observance 
 of the First Day of the Week, and the Prevention and Punish- 
 ment of Immorality." The following sections relate to the Sab- 
 bath : 
 
 "1. No person shall keep open his shop, warehouse or workhouse, 
 or shall do any manner of labor, business or work, or be present at 
 any dancing, or at any public diversion, show, or entertainment, or 
 take part in any sport, game or play on the first day of the week. The 
 foregoing provisions shall not apply to works of necessity and charity, 
 nor to the making of mutual promises of marriage, nor to the solemni- 
 zation of marriages. And every person so offending shall be punished 
 by fine not exceeding ten dollars for each offense. 
 
 "2. No tavern keeper, retailer of spirituous liquors or other person 
 keeping a house of public entertainment, shall entertain any persons, 
 not being travelers,, strangers, or lodgers in his house, on the said first 
 day of the week, or shall suffer any such person on said day to abide 
 or remain in his house, or in the buildings, yards, or orchards or fields 
 appertaining to the same, drinking, or spending their time idly, or at 
 ■play, or doing secular business. 
 
 "3. Any person offending against any of the provisions of the last 
 preceding section, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five dollars 
 for each person so entertained, or suffered so to abide or remain; and 
 upon any conviction after the first; such offender shall be punished 
 "by a fine not exceeding ten dollars; and if convicted three times, he 
 : shall be afterwards incapable of holding a license; and every person so 
 
MICHIGAN. 49 
 
 abiding or drinking shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five dol- 
 lars. 
 
 "4. No person shall be present at any game, sport, play, or pub- 
 lic diversion, or resort to any public assembly, excepting meetings for 
 religious worship or moral instruction, or concerts of sacred music, 
 upon the evening of the said first day of the vi^eek; and every person 
 so offending shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five dollars for 
 each offense. 
 
 "5. No person shall serve or execute any civil process from mid- 
 night preceding, to midnight following the said first day of the week; 
 but such service shall be void, and the person serving or executing pro- 
 cess, shall be liable in damages to the party aggrieved, in like manner 
 as if he had not had any such process. 
 
 "6. If any person shall, on the said first day of the week, by rude 
 and indecent behaviour, or in any other way, intentionally interrupt 
 or disturb any assembly of people met for the purpose of worshipping 
 God, he shall be punished by a fine not less than two, nor more than 
 fifty dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding thirty 
 days. 
 
 "7. No person who conscientiously believes that the seventh day 
 of the week ought to be observed as the Sabbath, and actually refrains 
 from secular business and labor on that day, shall be liable to the pen- 
 alties provided in this chapter, for performing secular business or labor 
 on the said first day of the week, provided he disturb no other person." 
 
 Section 8 states that the first day of the week includes the time 
 from midnight to midnight, and that no prosecution can be begun af- 
 ter the expiration of three months from the time when the offense* was 
 committed. (Vol. I, pp. 543-545). 
 
 In 1893 the following act was passed: "1. The people of the State 
 of Michigan enact: That it shall be unlawful for any preson or per- 
 sons to carry on or engage in the act or calling of hair cutting, shaving, 
 hair dressing and shampooing, or in any work pertaining to the trade 
 or business of a barber, on the first day of the week commonly called 
 Sunday except such person or persons shall be employed to exercise 
 such art or calling in relation to a deceased person on that day. 
 
 "2. That it shall be unlawful for any such person or persons to 
 keep open their shops or places of business aforesaid, on said first day 
 of the week commonly called Sunday, for any of the purposes men- 
 tioned in section one of this act: Provided, however, that nothing in 
 this act shall apply to persons who conscientiously believe the seventh 
 day of the week should be observed as the Sabbath and who actually 
 refrain from secular business on that day." 
 
 The fine for violating this act is not less than ten nor more than 
 twenty dollars, or imprisonment not more than thirty days, or both. 
 
 The constitutionality of this law was tested before the 
 -Supreme Court in 1893, in the case of People v. Bellet, Bellet 
 
50 MICHIGAN. 
 
 being on trial for violating the act relating to barbers. The 
 
 Court said : 
 
 "The better reason for maintaining the police power to prohibit 
 citizens from engaging in secular pursuits on Sunday is the necessity 
 of such regulations as a sanitary measure. As to those employments 
 which are noiseless, and harmless in themselves, and conducted in a 
 manner not calculated to offend those who, from religious, scruples, ob- 
 serve Sunday as the Lord's day, this necessity appears to be the only 
 valid source of legislative power; and this is based upon the fact that 
 experience has demonstrated that one day's rest is requisite for the 
 health of most individuals, and not all individuals, possess the power 
 to observe a day of their own volition." (99 Mich. 151). 
 
 In the case of Scougale v. Sweet, the Supreme Court, in declaring^ 
 games of base ball to be prohibited, said: "The right of the State to 
 enact laws for the observance of the Sabbath is beyond the domain 
 of discussion. Nearly every law that has been passed upon the subject 
 has been contested in the courts. Upon no subject is there a greater 
 
 unanimity in judicial opinions Whether they are enacted because 
 
 of the necessity of a day of rest, or out of regard to the religious prac- 
 tices and beliefs of the people, or from both considerations, we need 
 not consider It is the duty of the sheriff and police officers gen- 
 erally to enforce those laws which the people have enacted for the pro- 
 tection of their lives, persons, property, health and morals, including 
 the laws for the observance of the Sabbath." (124 Mich. 311, 1900). 
 
 As to the interpretation of the law it was formerly held that all 
 business, transactions on Sabbath were void and could not be enforced. 
 Two men traded horses on the Sabbath, and on the same day one of 
 them gave the other a note for the amount of the difference in their 
 value. The one who gave the note refused to pay, basing his refusal 
 on the fact that the transaction was illegal. He was sustained by the 
 Supreme Court, since "No case could be more clearly a matter of busi- 
 ness within the statute; and no business transaction on that day more 
 evidently demoralizing in its tendency and example." (2 Douglas 76). 
 
 In 1864 in the case of Tucker v. Mowry a different construction 
 was placed upon the law. In this case Mowry had sold a horse to Tuck- 
 er on the Sabbath. The question which arose was, since the contract 
 was void, could Mowry by tendering the consideration received recover 
 the horse? The Court held that he could. The following sentences 
 show the line of reasoning: "We think it much more in accord with 
 sound public policy to treat the contract as, utterly void, and to allow 
 the plaintiff, by tendering back what he has received (or doing what is 
 in his power to place the vendee in statu quo), to recover back his 
 property, than to refuse him a remedy, and thereby to affirm tne con- 
 tract as valid. To refuse all remedy in such cases would be to open a 
 wide door to fraud. It would operate, not only as a trap to the ignorant 
 
 and unwary, but as a direct encouragement to swindling We 
 
 cannot fail to see that if all remedy were refused in such cases, a 
 
MICHIGAN. 51 
 
 shrewd and dishonest man, knowing his victim could obtain no legal 
 redress, might, by fraudulent representations, or by tempting offers 
 which he could well afford to make, obtain money or property to any 
 extent without consideration or liability to pay. 
 
 "One object of the statute was to prevent the making of contracts 
 on Sunday; but to refuse to sustain an action to recover back property 
 sold on Sunday, would be offering a premium to the dishonest lo make 
 their contracts on that day." (12 Mich. 378). 
 
 In the case of Allen v. Duffie, Judge Cooley wrote an opin- 
 ion in which all the other Justices concurred, with reference to 
 the legality of subscriptions made on the Sabbath to pay off a 
 church debt. After declaring that such acts are not works of 
 necessity, he took up the question, are they works of charity? 
 On this question he said : 
 
 "Charity is active goodness. It is doing good to our fellow men. . , 
 It was never doubted so far as we know, that all the necessary or usual 
 work connected with religious worship was work of charity. If it 
 were not so, the minister who preaches, the organist and precentor,, 
 who furnishes the music, and the sexton, who cares for the building on. 
 Sunday, would be violating the law every day they performed service 
 for their religious society, and not only would be precluded from re- 
 covering compensation, but might be punished for services which are 
 proper in themselves, and for which the day is specially set apart. But 
 their work is not illegal, because it is in a true sense, and indeed in the 
 very highest sense, charitable. Religious societies are formed to do 
 
 good to mankind The support of religious societies being in 
 
 itself a charity, the general custom of such societies as to the methods 
 by which the means of support may be collected may throw much light 
 on the question, 'What is admissible?' The general sense of a Chris- 
 tian people has demanded and secured the law, and their method of 
 observing the day must be some evidence of the sense in which the 
 law is enacted. Now it is a matter of common observation that relig- 
 ious societies solicit moneys for their needs and take subscriptions at 
 their regular meetings on the first day of the week. . . . Nobody has 
 ever asserted, so far as we are aware, that the taking up of these Sab- 
 bath offerings was illegal and punishable under the statute." If a sub- 
 scription to a church debt is illegal the judge declared, "the clergyman 
 might be fined for appealing to his parishioners to be moce liberal in. 
 their donations." (43 Mich. 1, 1S90). 
 
 In the case of The Turnverein Society v. Carter, it was- 
 held that "A resolution adopted on Sunday by a society not a 
 religious or charitable association authorizing the mortgaging- 
 of the society's real estate, is void, and it is a question of law for 
 the Court whether the character of the society brings it within 
 the exception to the statute upon the subject." (71 Mich. 608.) 
 
52 MISSOURI 
 
 The following- deliverances show the policy of this State as 
 to contracts made on the Lord's day : 
 
 "It is settled law in Michigan that a Sunday contract is a pro- 
 hibited transaction, the illegality of which forbids it being made a sale 
 by a mere delivery later." 
 
 A note drawn on the Lord's day is void. (96 Mich. 243.) 
 
 A bond signed on the Sabbath, but dated and made to take effect 
 on a week day will protect an obligee who did not know that it was 
 signed on the Sabbath. (Hall v. Parker, 37 Mich. 590, 1877.) 
 
 With the exception of the liberty allowed to Saturday keep- 
 ers both to labor and transact business on the Sabbath, this law 
 is of superior excellence. The opinions of the courts are of a 
 high order. 
 
 MISSOURI. (1S99). 
 
 The Sabbath law of Missouri is found in Chapter 15, article 
 VIII. and is entitled "Offences against Public Morals and 
 .Decency." The following sections relate to the Sabbath: 
 
 "2240. Sabbath breaking. Every person who shall either 
 labor himself, or compel or permit his apprentice or servant, 
 or any other person under his charge or control, to 
 labor or perform any work other than the household of- 
 fices of daily necessity, or other works of necessity or charity, or who 
 shall be guilty of hunting game or shooting on the first day of the week, 
 commonly called Sunday, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, 
 and fined not exceeding fifty dollars. 
 
 "2241. The last section shall not extend to any person who is a 
 member of a religious, society by whom any other than the first day 
 •of the week is observed as a Sabbath, so as he observes such Sabbath, 
 nor to prohibit any ferryman from crossing passengers on any day of 
 the week; nor shall said last section be extended or construed to be an 
 excuse or defense in any suit for the recovery of damages or penalties 
 from any person, company or corporation voluntarily contracting or 
 engaging in business on Sunday. 
 
 "2242. Horse racing, etc., on Sunday. — Every person who shall be 
 convicted of horse racing, cock fighting, or playing at cards or games of 
 any kind, on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, shall 
 be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and fined not exceeding fifty dol- 
 lars. 
 
 "2243. Selling goods on Sunday. — Every person who shall expose 
 to sale any goods, wares or merchandise, or shall keep open any ale or 
 porter house, grocery or tippling shop, or shall sell or retail any fer- 
 
jiissounr. 53 
 
 mented or distilled liquor on the first day of the v/eek, commonly called 
 Sunday, shall, on conviction, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor and 
 fined not exceeding fifty dollars. 
 
 "Sec. 2244. The last section shall not be construed to prevent the 
 sale of any drugs or medicines, provisions or other articles of immedi- 
 ate necessity. 
 
 "2245. Barbering on Sunday. — That it shall be a misdemeanor for 
 any person to carry on the business of barbering on Sunday. (1895). 
 
 "2246. That any one found guilty of violating section 2245 of 
 this article shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars nor more 
 than fifty dollars, or imprisoned in the county jail not less than fif- 
 teen no more than thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court. 
 (Vol. 1. pp. 523, 624). 
 
 The following miscellaneous sections treat of various aspects 
 of the question : 
 
 "370. . . .Where the affidavit for an attachment states that the 
 plaintiff will lose his claim unless the writ of attachment issues and be 
 served on Sunday or on any legal holiday, the writ may be issued and 
 servel on that day." 
 
 Chapter 14 contains the following with reference to courts: 
 
 "1615. No Court to sit on Sunday. — No court shall be open or 
 transact business on Sunday, unless it be for the purpose of receiving 
 a verdict or discharging a jury; and every adjournment of the court 
 on Saturday shall always be to some other day than Sunday, except 
 such adjournment as may be made after a cause has been committed 
 to a jury; but this section shall not prevent the exercise of the juris- 
 diction of any magistrate, when it shall be necessary in criminal cases, 
 to preserve the peace or arrest the offender, nor shall it prevent the 
 issuing and service of any attachment in a case where a debtor is about 
 fraudulently to secrete or remove his effects." 
 
 Chapter 22 has the following on dram-shops: 
 
 "3011. Any person having a license as a dram-shop-keeper, who 
 shall keep open such dram-shops, or shall sell, give away or otherwise 
 dispose of, or suffer the same to be done upon or about his premises, 
 any intoxicating liquors, in any quantity, on the first day of the week, 
 commonly called Sunday, or upon the day of any general election in 
 this State, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not less 
 than fifty nor more than two hundred dollars, shall forfeit such license, 
 and shall not again be allowed to obtain a license to keep a dramshop 
 for the term of two years next thereafter." 
 
 In chapter 65 serving writs, etc., is treated of: 
 
 "4683. No person on Sunday shall serve or execute any writ, 
 
 process, warrant, order or judgment, except in criminal cases, or for a 
 breach of the peace, or when the defendant is about leaving the county, 
 or in any case of attachment when the debtor is about fraudulently to 
 secrete or remove his effects or in any injunction case." 
 
54 MISSOURI. 
 
 The constitutionality of the Missouri Sabbath law was de- 
 cided by the Supreme Court in 1854, in the case of the State v. 
 Ambs. Judge Scott delivered the opinion of the court. The 
 following extracts are of weighty importance : 
 
 "Peter Ambs was indicted for keeping open an ale house on Sun- 
 day, and for selling intoxicating liquors on the same day The 
 
 main question argued in the briefs of the counsel in this case was, the 
 constitutionality of the law exacting the observance of Sunday, as a 
 day of rest. It was maintained for the appellant, that the laws enjoin- 
 ing an abstinence from labor on Sunday, under a penalty, and prohibit- 
 ing the opening of ale and beer houses, and selling intoxicating liquors 
 on that day, were dictated by religious motives, and consequently 
 could not be sustained, being inconsistent with the State constitution, 
 which ordains that all men have a natural and indefeasible right to 
 worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own con- 
 sciences; that no human authority can control or interfere with 
 
 the rights of conscience; that no person can ever be hurt, molested or 
 restrained in his religious professions or sentiments, if he do not dis- 
 turb others, in their religious worship; that no preference can ever be 
 given by law to any sect or mode of worship. 
 
 "Those who question the constitutionality of our Sunday laws, 
 seem to imagine that the constitution is to be regarded as an instru- 
 ment framed for a State composed of strangers collected from all quar- 
 ters of the globe, each with a religion of his, own. bound by no prev- 
 ious social ties, nor sympathizing in any common reminiscences of the 
 past; that unlike ordinary laws,, it is not to be construed in reference 
 to the state and condition of those for whom it was intended, btit that 
 the words in which it is comprehended are alone to be regarded, with- 
 out respect to the history of the people for whom it v/as made. 
 
 "It is apprehended, that such is not the mode by which our organic 
 law is to be interpreted. We must regard the people for whom it was 
 ordained. It appears to have been made by Christian men. The con- 
 stitution, on its face, shows that the Christian religion was the re- 
 ligion of its framers. . . . Long before the convention which framed 
 our constitution was assembled, experience had shown that the mild 
 ■voice of Christianity was unable to secure the due observance of Sun- 
 day as a day of rest. The arm of the civil power had interposed. The 
 convention sat under a law exacting a cessation from labor on Sunday. 
 The journal of the convention will show that this law was obeyed by 
 its members as such, by adjournments from Saturday until Monday. 
 .... The framers of the constitution then recognized Sunday as a 
 day to be observed, acting themselves under a law which exacted a 
 compulsive observance of it. If a compulsive observance of the Lord's 
 day, as a day of rest, had been deemed inconsistent with the principles 
 contained in the constitution, can any thing be clearer than, as, the 
 matter was so plainly and palpably before the convention, a specific 
 
3nSS0URI. 55 
 
 condemnation of the Sunday law would have been engrafted upon it? 
 So far from it, Sunday was recognized as a day of rest, when, at the 
 same time, a cessation from labor on that day was coerced by a pen- 
 alty. They, then, who engrafted on our constitution the principles of 
 religious freedom therein contained, did not regard the compulsory ob- 
 servance of Sunday as a day of rest, a violation of those principles. 
 They deemed a statute compelling the observance of Sunday necessary 
 to secure a full enjoyment of the rights of conscience. How could those 
 who conscientiously believed that Sunday is hallowed time, to be de- 
 voted to the worship of God, enjoy themselves in its observance amidst 
 all the turmoil and bustle of worldly pursuits, amidst scenes by which 
 the day was desecrated, which they conscientiously believed to be holy? 
 The Sunday law was not intended to compel people to go to church, or 
 to perform any religious act, as an expression of preference for any 
 particular creed or sect, but was designed to coerce a cessation from la- 
 bor, that those who conscientiously believed that the day was set apart 
 for the worship of God, might not be disturbed in the performance of 
 their religious duties. Every man is free to use the day for the pur- 
 pose for which it is set apart or not, as he pleases. If he sees proper 
 to devote it to religious purposes, the law protects him from the dis- 
 turbance of others; if he will not employ himself in raligious duties, 
 he is restrained from interrupting those who do. Thus the law, so far 
 from affecting religious freedom, is a means by which the rights of con- 
 science are enjoyed." "Bearing in mind that our constitution was 
 framed for a people whose religion was Christianity, who had long 
 lived under, and experienced the necessity of laws to secure the observ- 
 ance of Sunday as a day of rest, how remarkable would it have been 
 fhat they should have agreed to make common, by their fundamental 
 law, a day consecrated from the very birth of their religion, and hal- 
 lowed by associations dear to every Christian How can we recon- 
 cile the idea to our understanding, that a people professing Christian- 
 ity would make a fundamental law by which they would convert Sun- 
 day into a worldly day? How startling would the announcement 
 
 be to the people of Missouri that, by their organic law, they had abol- 
 ished Sunday as a day of rest, and had put it out of the power of their 
 legislators ever to restore it as such!" (20 Mo. 214). 
 
 In the case of the State v. Granneman, section 2245, was declared 
 unconstitutional because it is special law. The Court said: "Barber- 
 ing is labor, and the object of the act is to enforce an 
 observance of the Sabbath, and to prohibit that kind of labor on that 
 -day. The policy of our laws is to compel the observance of Sunday 
 as a day of rest, and if this may be done by a general law, applicable 
 alike to all classes and kinds of labor, then the act falls within the in- 
 hibition of the paragraph of the constitution quoted, which prohibits 
 the legislature from passing any local or special law, where a general 
 lav,^ can be made applicable. That a general law prohibiting all kinds 
 <of labor on Sunday, may not only be passed, but that we have such a 
 
56 MISSOURI. 
 
 law now upon our statute book, is indisputable." I. R. S. 1889, Sec. 3852. 
 (132 Mo. 326. 1895). 
 
 Judge Ellison, of the Missouri Court of Appeals, made a contribu- 
 tion of considerable value to the argument for the constitutionality of 
 Sabbath laws in the case of the City of St. Joseph v. Elliott. He said: 
 "Whether laws enforcing the observance of Sunday be bottomed alone 
 on matters spiritual and religious and have for their sole object the 
 enforcement of religious duty, or whether such laws are merely the ex- 
 ercise of the State's police power regulating the customs, peace or 
 health of the people, can make no practical difference to this defendant. 
 These laws, under constitutions like ours, are everywhere upheld, 
 though the reasons upon which they are sustained are various. So 
 if defendant has been convicted on the theory that the law made him 
 observe the Sabbath either from a religious duty to God, or a political 
 duty to the State, or a social duty to his fellows, or all of these com- 
 bined, can make no difference. Each of the foregoing have been given 
 as reasons back of the law, and each leading to the one result of up- 
 holding the law, and convicting this defendant. 
 
 "It is not our province to decide this ordinance to be constitutional 
 for one or other of these reasons, and we do not undertake to do so. 
 But that it is proper to hold that it is an object of such laws to prevent 
 the desecration of the Sabbath, there can be no doubt. To say otherwise 
 would be to shut one's eyes to all history and to isolate one's self from 
 his, daily surroundings. Because no one can be compelled to do any 
 act of religious service on Sunday, it by no means follows that he can- 
 not be prevented from desecrating the day. For I apprehend that no 
 man will be found with sufficient temerity to say that all Sunday laws 
 in this country have not as a part, at least, of their object the protec- 
 tion of the observance of religious duties, and that the moving cause of 
 their enactment was not in obedience to, and the result of, religious 
 sentiment existing in the State where enacted." 
 
 "The truth is that some courts having concluded (perhaps with- 
 out sufficient justification) that laws enacted for the observance of 
 Sunday as a religious duty were repugnant to constitutions guarantee- 
 ing religious freedom, and yet determined to uphold them, have set 
 about to find other reasons than those based on Christianity. These 
 reasons Ringgold, in his work on the law of Sunday (p. 101), declares 
 to be 'an afterthought of the courts,' that is to say, that it is an attempt 
 to find a sanction for these statutes in considerations which have never 
 been the moving causes of their enactment." (47 A. 418, 1891). 
 
 The law declares that no court shall be open or transact any busi- 
 ness on Sabbath unless it be for the purpose of receiving a verdict and 
 discharging a jury. In the St. Louis Criminal Court a man by the name 
 of Green was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree. The 
 charge to the jury was not completed till ten minutes after twelve on 
 Saturday night. The court then took a recess till two o'clock when the- 
 verdict was received and the jury discharged. Appeal was taken, chief- 
 
MISSOURI. 57' 
 
 ly on this ground, to the Supreme Court. This Court held that the 
 charge to the jury should have ended by midnight, and since it did not 
 all the proceedings after that hour were illegal and void, and the cause 
 was remanded for a new trial. (37 Mo., State v. Green, 4G6, 1866). 
 
 Where goods are selected and the prices settled on Sabbath, but 
 according to the contract are not to be delivered till Monday, the con- 
 tract cannot be regarded as made on Sabbath. (Rosenblatt v. Towns- 
 ley, 73 Mo. 536, 1881). 
 
 It has been held that the statute prohibiting "horseracing, cock 
 fighting, or playing at cards or games of any kind, on the first day of 
 the week," does not prohibit "athletic games and sports." (The St. L. 
 Agr'l Ass'n v. Delana, 108 Mo. 217, 1891). 
 
 The statutes of Missouri do not go so far as those of many other 
 States in prohibiting the transaction of all worldly business. Promissory 
 notes and deeds drawn on the first day of the week are valid. (Roberts 
 V. Barnes, 127 Mo. 405, 1894, Kauffman v. Hamm, 30 Mo. 387, More v. 
 Clymer, 12 Mo. App. 11). 
 
 Playing baseball is held not to be a violation of the statutes, be- 
 cause it is not an immoral game, and the games forbidden on the first 
 day of the week are only such as are in their nature demoralizing. 
 The contrary construction of the statute it was, said would be "elastic 
 enough to cover every game that ever was or ever will be invented, no 
 matter whether it was harmless, promotive of physical or mental de- 
 velopment or deleterious to both. It would prevent games of chess, 
 backgammon, jacks, authors, proverbs, faro, keno, and poker alike, and 
 when played on Sunday any one would have been as illegal as any oth- 
 er. Such a construction would have curtailed many of the pleasures of 
 our people, without elevating them or improving their moral tone." 
 (Ex. parte Joseph Nect. 157 Mo. 527, 1900). 
 
 According to the law of this State a motion for a new trial must be 
 filed v/ithin four days, but courts must take notice of the calendar, and 
 an intervening Sabbath is not to be counted. (The State v. Gullette, 
 121 Mo. 445, 1894). 
 
 The execution of a deed of trust on the Sabbath is not for that rea- 
 son void. (Robert v. Barnes, 127 Mo. 405, 1894). 
 
 The law of Missouri like that of Kansas is interpreted as not 
 prohibiting on the Lord's day base ball and other athletic sports. 
 It needs amendment so as to make it clear that not only all im- 
 moral games without exception are prohibited, but that all public 
 sports are also put under the ban. The first opinion quoted 
 above is one of the most able ever delivered on this question. It 
 makes clear the fact that Christianity is part of the common law. 
 Akich is added to the argument for Sabbath laws by this and 
 some other opinions of the ^Missouri Courts. 
 
58 NORTH DAKOTA. 
 
 NORTH DAKOTA. (1899). 
 
 Chapter 4 of the Penal Code of this State is entitled "Crimes 
 against Religion and Conscience." The sections relating to "Sab- 
 bath Breaking" are as follows : 
 
 "6837. The first day of the week being by general consent set apart 
 for rest and religious uses, the law prohibits the doing on that day of 
 certain acts hereinafter specified. 
 
 "6838. Any violation of this prohibition is Sabbath-breaking. 
 
 "6839. Under the term "day" as employed in the phrase "first day 
 of the week," in the seven sections following, is iscluded all the time 
 from midnight to midnight. 
 
 "6840. The following are the acts forbidden to be done on the first 
 day of the week, the doing of any of which is Sabbath-breaking. 
 
 "1. Servile labor. 
 
 "2. Public sports. 
 
 "3. Trades, manufactures and mechanical employments. 
 
 "4. Public trafiic. 
 
 "5. Serving process. 
 
 "6841. All manner of servile labor on the first day of the week is 
 prohibited, excepting works of necessity and charity. 
 
 "6842. It is a sufficient defense in proceedings for servile labor on 
 the first day of the week, to show that the accused uniformly keeps 
 another day of the week as holy time, and does not labor upon that 
 day, and that the labor complained of was done in such manner as 
 not to interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of 
 the week as holy time. 
 
 "6843. All shooting, sporting, horse-racing, gaming or other public 
 •sports, upon the first day of the week, are prohibited. 
 
 "6844. All trades, manufactures and mechanical employments, 
 upon the first day of the week, are prohibited. 
 
 "6845. All manner of public selling, or offering, or exposing for 
 sale publicly, of any commodities upon the first day of the week is 
 prohibited, except that meats, milk and fish may be sold at any time 
 before nine o'clock in the morning, and except that food may be sold 
 to be eaten upon the premises where sold, and drugs and medicines and 
 surgical appliances may be sold at any time of the day. 
 
 "6846. All service of legal process of any description, upon the 
 first day of the week, is prohibited, except in cases of breach of the 
 peace, or when sued out for the apprehension of a person charged with 
 crime, or except where such service shall be specially authorized by 
 law. 
 
 "6847. Every person guilty of Sabbath breaking is punishable 
 by a fine of not less than one dollar nor more than ten dollars at the 
 -discretion of the court, for each offense. 
 
 "6848. The fines prescribed in this chapter for profane swearing 
 
OHIO. 59 
 
 and for Sabbath breaking may be collected in the manner prescribed 
 by law, for collection of debts; but no property shall be exempt from 
 execution which has. been taken to satisfy any such fines and costs. 
 
 "6849. Every innkeeper, or person licensed to sell liquors, who 
 sells or gives away any strong or spirituous liquors or wine, upon Sun- 
 day, is guilty of a misdemeanor. 
 
 "6850. Every master or other person engaged in navigating a 
 steamboat, who allows, any liquors mentioned in the last section to be 
 sold on his boat on Sunday, while stopping at any wharf, landing, city 
 or town in this State, is guilty of a misdemeanor." 
 
 North Dakota being onQ of the newer States not many cases 
 have yet reached the Supreme Court. While North and South 
 Dakota formed the Territory of Dakota a case with reference to 
 what is lawful for juries and courts was rendered. It was held 
 that : 
 
 "A jury that has retired to deliberate upon their verdict, may re- 
 quest and receive additional instructions on the Sabbath, or the judge 
 may on that day upon his own motion have the jury brought in and 
 re-instruct them, for the purpose of correcting a supposed error or 
 mistake in his former charge." (1 Dakota, 197, 1875). 
 
 The law of this State, like some others in this class, allows 
 the sale of certain articles of food on the Sabbath. It is doubt- 
 ful whether the latitude allowed is necessary. Aside from the 
 features here noted this is among; the best of otir Sabbath laws. 
 
 OHIO. (1903). 
 
 Part Four of the Ohio statutes contains the Penal Laws. 
 Chapter 9 treats of "Ofifences against Chastity and Morals." 
 The sections relating to the Sabbath are the following : 
 
 "7032. Whoever, being over fourteen years of age, engages in 
 sporting, rioting, quarreling, hunting, fishing, or shooting, on Sunday, 
 shall, on complaint made within ten days thereafter, be fined not more 
 than twenty dollars, or imprisoned not more than twenty days, or 
 both. 
 
 "7032a. Whoever on the first day of the week, commonly called 
 Sunday, participates in or exhibits to the public with or without eharge 
 for admittance, in any building, I'oom, ground, garden, or other place in 
 this State, any theatrical or dramatic performance of any kind or de- 
 scription, or any equestrian or circus performance of jugglers, acrobats, 
 rope dancing, sparring exhibitions, variety shows, negro minstrelsy, 
 living statuary, ballooning, or any baseball playing, or any ten pins, 
 or other games of similar kind or kinds, or participates In keeping any 
 low or disorderly house of resort, or shall sell, dispose of or give away 
 any ale, beer, porter, or spirituous liquors in any building appendant or 
 
6o OHIO. 
 
 adjacent thereto, when any such show, performance, or exhibition is- 
 given, or houses or places is lvept,'he or she shall, on complaint made 
 within twenty days thereafter, be fined in any sum not exceeding one 
 hundred dollars, or be confined in the county jail not exceeding six 
 months, or both, at the discretion of the court. 
 
 "7033. Whoever, being over fourteen years of age, engages in com- 
 mon labor on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday; and 
 whoever, being over fourteen years of age, shall open or cause to be 
 opened any building or place for the transaction of business on the first 
 day of the week, commonly called Sunday, or who shall require any 
 person in his, employ or under his control to engage in common labor 
 on Sunday, shall, on complaint made within ten days thereafter, and 
 upon conviction, be fined, for the first offense, twenty-five dollars, and 
 for each subsequent offense such person shall be fined not less than 
 fifty dollars nor more than one hundred dollars, and imprisoned not 
 less than five days nor more than thirty days. 
 
 "But this section does not apply to or embrace works of necessity 
 or charity, and does not extend to persons who conscientiously observe 
 the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, and who do in fact ab- 
 stain, on that day, from the doing of the things Herein prohibited on 
 Sunday; nor shall it be so construed as to prevent families emigrating, 
 from travelling, or watermen from landing their passengers, or keepers 
 of toll-bridges, toll-gates or ferries from attending the same, on Sun- 
 day. 
 
 "7033-1. Any person who engages in the business of barbering on 
 Sunday shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction 
 thereof shall be fined not less than fifteen dollars, and upon a subse- 
 quent conviction for a like offense shall be fined not less than twenty 
 dollars, and not more than thirty dollars, or imprisoned in the county 
 jail for a period of not less than twenty days nor more than thirty 
 days, or be both fined and imprisoned at the discretion of the court." 
 (Vol. 3, pp.. 3390, 3391). 
 
 The clause in sec. 7032 relating to the opening of places of 
 business was added only a few years ago, but the courts generally 
 held that the expression "common labor" in the same section 
 included buying, selling etc : 
 
 The first case to call forth a Supreme Court opinion on the 
 constitutionality of this law was that of Bloom v. Richards. 
 The question at issue was the validity of a contract made on the 
 first day of the week. In two older cases such contracts were 
 declared to be void. (15 O. R. 225, 1846; 18 O. R. 489, 1849). 
 In this case they were pronounced valid, Judge Thurman de- 
 livering the opinion of the court. It was first maintained that 
 neither in England nor America are such contracts void at com- 
 mon law, although the contrary opinion has sometimes been held 
 
OHIO. 6r 
 
 in both countries. Mr. Justice Thurman then presents an 
 elaborate argument on the point in dispute in which he denies 
 that Christianity is part of the common law, but upholds the 
 constitutionality of the law as a police regulation. The follow- 
 ing sentences are interesting though we may not wholly agree 
 with some of the positions taken. 
 
 "Were such a contract void by the common law of England, it 
 would not necessarily follow that it is void in Ohio The consti- 
 tution of Ohio has declared that all men have a natural and indefeas- 
 ible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of con- 
 science; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control 
 or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no man shall be com- 
 pelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain 
 any ministry, against his consent; and that no preference shall ever be 
 given, by lavs^, to any religious society or mode of worship, and no re- 
 ligious test shall be required, as a qualiflcafion to any office of trust or 
 profit, it follows that neither Christianity, nor any other system of re- 
 ligion is a part of the law of the State We have no union of Church 
 
 and State, nor has our government ever been vested with authority to 
 enforce any religious observance, simply because it is religious. Of 
 course, it is no objection, but, on the contrary, is a high recommenda- 
 tion, to a legislative enactment, based upon justice or public policy, 
 that it is found to coincide with the precepts of a pure religion; but 
 the fact is, nevertheless true, that the power to make the law rests in 
 the legislative control over things temporal and not over things spirit- 
 ual. Thus the statute upon which the defendant relies, prohibiting 
 common labor on the Sabbath, could not stand for a moment as a law 
 of this State, if its sole foundation was the Christian duty Gl keeping 
 that day holy, and its sole motive to enforce the observance of that 
 duty. For no power over things merely spiritual, has ever been dele- 
 gated to the government, while any preference of one religion over an- 
 other, as the statute would give upon the above hypothesis, is directly 
 prohibited by the constitution. Acts evil in their nature, or dangerous 
 to the public welfare, may be forbidden and punished, though sanc- 
 tioned by one religion and prohibited by another; but this creates no 
 preference whatever, for they would be equally forbidden and punished 
 if all religions permitted them. Thus, no plea of his religion could 
 shield a murderer, ravisher, or bigamist: for the community would be 
 at the mercy of superstition, if such crimes as these could be committed 
 with impunity, because sanctioned by some religious delusion. 
 
 "We are, then, to regard the statute under consideration as a mere 
 municipal, or police regulation, whose validity is neither strengthened 
 or weakened by the fact that the day of rest it enjoins is the Sabbath 
 day. _ Wisdom requires that men should refrain from labor at least one 
 day in seven, and the advantages of having the day of rest fixed, and 
 so fixed as to happen at regularly recurring intervals, are too obvious 
 
62 OHIO. 
 
 to be overlooked. It was within the constitutional competency of the 
 General Assembly to require this 'cessation of labor, and to name the 
 day of rest. It did so by the act referred to, and, in accordance with 
 the feelings of a majority of the people, the Christian Sabbath was 
 very properly selected. But, regarded merely as an exertion of legisla- 
 tive authority, the act would have had neither more nor less validity 
 had any other day been adopted." Judge Thurman says that it may be 
 consistent, in a country where Christianity is a part of the law, and in 
 which there is an established Church, and an omnipotent parliament, 
 to declare that "to allow men to make bargains on the Sabbath is to 
 let them desecrate that holy day, and it should not be granted that the 
 legislature would suffer that." But he declares "the General Assembly 
 of Ohio is not, as we have shown, a guardian of the sanctity of any day. 
 If it may protect the first day of the week from desecration, because 
 it is the Christian Sabbath, it may, in like manner, protect the sixth be- 
 cause it is the holy day of the Mahommedan and the seventh because it 
 is the Sabbath of the Jew and the Seventh Day Baptist." "It would, 
 in the opinion of most Christians, be a far greater desecration of Sun- 
 day to go to an infidel lecture on that day, than to buy a tract of land: 
 and yet the former is certainly not unlawful. The statute leaves a man 
 to study atheism or the Bible on the Lord's day, as he may see fit, al- 
 though in the judgment of most men, the former occupation is as vici- 
 ous as the latter is laudable. There are various religious duties, the 
 performance of which on Sunday is considered peculiarly appropriate; 
 various occupations or amusements, harmless in themselves, but 
 deemed by most Christians irreligious if indulged in on the Sabbath; 
 yet the law neither enforces the one nor forbids the other. In a word, 
 we repeat, that legally considered, Sunday is merely a day of rest. To 
 the Christian it is far more. With him, it has a sanctity not derived 
 from human laws, but stamped upon it by the Almighty. His observ- 
 ance of it is not the mere performance of a civil duty, but an obedi- 
 ence to a precept of the Most High. In this faith he is protected; the 
 faith itself is regarded with respect; but the law does not enforce it." 
 (2 O. S. R. 387, 1853). 
 
 In 1855 the merits of the Sabbath law of Ohio were again 
 put to the test before the Supreme Court, in the case of Thomas 
 McGatrick v. Charles Mason. (4 O. S. 566). Mason had re- 
 quested his hired man McGatrick to assist him in placing 
 certain railroad cars and trucks, — which he had sold and agreed 
 to ship from Cleveland to Toledo — on a vessel ; to do which it was 
 necessary to raise them from the dock by the use of machinery 
 and manual efifort. McGatrick consented. The work was to 
 be done the next day which was Sabbath, Nov. 15, as the vessel 
 was about to sail, and the master would not take the cars etc., 
 unless shipped on that day ; and "it was a matter of great neces- 
 
OHIO. 65 
 
 sity that they should be shipped as speedily as possible, as 
 navigation was about closing." \\niile raising one of the trucks, 
 a part of the machinery gave way, owing to which the truck fell 
 upon McGatrick, breaking both his legs. To recover damages 
 for this injury, he brought suit against Mason. 
 
 The plea was advanced by Mason that McGatrick, when the 
 injury happened, was in fault himself, being in the commission 
 of an unlawful act. It became necessary for the court to argue 
 this point. Judge A. G. Thurman used the following language in 
 arguing the question, what is a work of necessity? 
 
 "In answering this question, we must always keep in mind, that 
 it is no part of the object of the act to enforce the observance of a 
 religious duty. The act does not to any extent rest upon the ground 
 that it is immoral or irreligious to labor on the Sabbath, any more 
 than upon any other day. It simply prescribes a day of rest from 
 motives of public policy and as a civil regulation, and as the prohibi- 
 tion itself is founded on principles of public policy, upon the same 
 principles, certain exceptions are made, among which are works of 
 necessity and charity. In saying this, I do not mean to intimate that 
 religion prohibits works of necessity and charity on the Sabbath; but 
 merely to show that the principles upon which our statutes rest, are 
 wholly secular; and that they are none the less so because they may 
 happen to concur with the dictates of religion. Thus the day of rest, 
 prescribed by the statute is the Christian Sabbath, yet so entirely 
 does the act rest upon grounds of public policy, that, as was said in 
 Bloom V. Richards, 2 O. S. R. 391, 392, it would be equally constitu- 
 tional and obligatory, did it name any other day, and it derives none 
 of its force from the fact that the day of rest is Sunday. . . . Nor will 
 it do to limit the word 'necessity' to those cases of danger to life, 
 health or property, which are beyond human foresight or control. On 
 the contrary, the necessity may grow out of, or indeed be incident to 
 a particular trade or calling, and yet be a case of necessity within 
 the meaning of the act. For it is no part of the design of the act to 
 destroy, or impose onerous restrictions upon any lawful trade or busi- 
 ness; and hence under a similar statute it has been held in a sister 
 State, that it is lawful to keep a blast furnace at work on Sunday, be- 
 cause it is a work of necessity. So, too, it has been held, that under 
 special circumstances, a mill may grind on that day; and I think it 
 will hardly be questioned, that a gas company may supply gas; a 
 water company water; and a dairyman milk, to their respective cus- 
 tomers, on that day." 
 
 In 1898 at the January term of the Supreme Court of Ohio 
 the case of the State v. Powell was tried. In this case the effort 
 was made to show that the statute making it unlawful to engage 
 
64 OHIO. 
 
 in "any base ball playing" is tmconstitiitional. (58 O. R. 324 — 
 346). It was maintained by the counsel for the State, that the 
 enacting of such a law "\yas plainly within the domain of the 
 legislative power commonly called the police power." 
 
 "This statute under discussion does not forbid or interfere with any 
 one in the worship of Almighty God 'according to the dictates of his 
 own conscience.' We have never heard the contention, and do not 
 expect to hear it, that playing base ball is an act of worship, which the 
 conscience of any one requires to be performed on Sunday. It is 
 not essential to the exercise of the police power of the legislature, 
 that the matter in respect to which it is exercised must be in its na- 
 ture injurious; or as the Court below is reported to have expressed 
 it. a matter malum in se." 
 
 Judge Marshall in delivering the opinion of the court, among other 
 things said: 
 
 "The policy of Sunday laws is based upon the observed fact, de- 
 rived from long experience and the custom of all nations, that per- 
 iods of rest from ordinary pursuits are requisite to the well-being, 
 morally and physically, of a people. If there were no such regularly 
 recurring periods, there is reason to believe that the masses would 
 become morbid in mind, crime would multiply, and degeneracy likely 
 ensue." "Religious liberty does not consist in the right of any sect 
 to oppose its views to the policy of a government. Such a claim 
 would end in simple intolerance of all not in accord with the senti- 
 ments of the particular sect. Those v/ho, as a matter of religious 
 faith, observe the seventh day of the week are not prohibited from 
 doing so; but they cannot insist that others shall do so, nor refuse to 
 observe the day fixed by the State for secular reasons." The Judge 
 pointed out that the argument of the Counsel for Powell was based 
 on the assumption that the purpose of the act is to enforce the ob- 
 servance of Sunday as a religious requirement. He said that 
 'No doubt many who advocate Sunday observance, particularly 
 the Christian ministry, do so from the persuasion that our 
 Sunda^y laws are designed as religious observances only, and 
 insist that they shall be more rigidly enforced that the people may be 
 more accessible to the influence of the Christian pulpit. However, 
 desirable this may be from a Christian standpoint, it is certain that it 
 is not in the power of the Legislature to accomplish this by any direct 
 legislation, so long as religious liberty is guaranteed, as it is, in our 
 bill of rights. ... A law enacted for sufficient reasons of a secular 
 nature— as the public health, cannot be held invalid because there is a 
 variety of religious notions upon the subject. Nor can the States be 
 iprevented from adopting certain civil regulations, recommended by a 
 wise public policy, simply because found to be in accord with the teach- 
 ing of some religion. There is probably no religious observance that 
 icould not be enforced as a secular duty without violating the guaran- 
 
OHIO. 65 
 
 •tee of religious liberty, where there are sufficient secular reasons for 
 ^oing so, independent of what is ordained as a matter of religion. In 
 general, where there are secular and religious reasons for the same 
 )bservance or law, the observance or law may be adopted as a civil reg- 
 ilation by the legislature for the attainment of the secular purposes; 
 ind when enforced for these purposes alone, no one can complain of it 
 simply because the observance or law finds support in the precepts of 
 some religion. It is enjoined for secular and not religious reasons. It 
 might be questioned whether the Jewish Sabbath was prescribed purely 
 as a religious observance, and without any regard to the temporal wel- 
 fare of the people. It must be remembered that the Jewish Govern- 
 ment was in the nature of a theocracy, and its precepts were given 
 without much regard to what was of a spiritual nature, and what was 
 •secular and related to the temporal government of the people alone." 
 
 In March 1898, in State v. Goode et al, the same que.stion 
 was considered. Judge Fisher dehvered the opinion of the 
 
 court. He said : 
 
 "The validity of the Sunday laws has been repeatedly passed upon 
 and in clear and vigorous language sustained by our Supreme Court, 
 not on the ground that the day is holy, and by Christians observed 
 ^s a day for religious thought and worship, but on the ground that it 
 is the day set by the State for rest, quiet and peace, for the welfare, 
 
 liealth and happiness of all people, Jew, Christian and unbeliever 
 
 In exercising the power to name a day of rest, the legislature could 
 have named any other day in the week, and required its observance, 
 That it named Sunday is not strange; in fact being a Christian peo- 
 ple, it would have been passing strange indeed, had any other day than 
 Sunday been named. 
 
 "When the Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth Rock, they brought 
 with them not only the spirit of religious liberty — the right to worship 
 Almighty God according to the dictates of one's own conscience — but 
 they brought also, as well, the Christian Sabbath, and the one be- 
 came as much a part of the organic or fundamental law of the land as 
 the other, and from the very beginning of the establishment of the 
 Colonial Governments down to the present time, the right to regulate 
 the observance of the one, as a fixed period of rest and cessation from 
 labor, has been as broadly recognized as has been the right of absolute 
 freedom of religious worship. 
 
 "While the right to enjoy absolute religious liberty and the right 
 to appoint a day of rest and regulate its observance have gone hand 
 in hand from the very formation of the government, it has never been 
 questioned that thi^ broadest enforcement of the one in any way con- 
 flicts with, or hinders the broadest enjoyment of the other, because the 
 ■day fixed for rest is the Sabbath day." (5 Nisi Prius Reports, 179, 
 i898.) 
 
66 OHIO. 
 
 The cases already cited in which the constitutionaHty of the 
 law is maintained set forth with considerable explicitness the in- 
 terpretation of the law. Rut few additional cases need therefore 
 to be given. 
 
 In Swisher v. Williams the efifort was made to void a deed 
 because executed on the Lord's day. The Court held that the 
 law v/as violated, both parties partaking of the sin. But it was 
 added, 
 
 "The law does not require of us to enable either party to add ta 
 the sin by breaking the faith pledged on that day, and commit a fraud 
 out of assumed regard for the Sabbath day." (Wright's Reports, 754, 
 1834.) 
 
 In Nagle v. Brown it was held that "It is not unlawful in this- 
 State to travel upon public highways, for pleasure merely, upon the 
 Sabbath day. The due and legal observance of the Sabbath day is 
 regulated by statute. Act of March 30, 18G4, Swan & Saylor 289. In 
 addition to 'Common labor (works of necessity and charity only ex- 
 cepted), the statute makes it unlawful for any person of fourteen years- 
 or upward to be found on the first day of the week, commonly called 
 Sunday, sporting, rioting, quarreling, hunting, fishing or shooting.'' 
 Beyond these inhibitions the observance o'f the day is left to the con- 
 science and religious convictions of the citizen; and in our judgment 
 the innocent and healthful exercise of riding or driving, is not withia 
 the meaning of the terms of the inhibition." (37 O. R. 7, 1881.) 
 
 In 1885 at the January term of the Ohio Supreme Court, the 
 question was decided whether or not the publication of the pre- 
 liminary and other ordinances, with respect to a street improve- 
 ment, in a newspaper of general circulation, in accordance with 
 the terms of the statute, is a valid and legal publication, although 
 such paper is published only on Sunday." (Hastings v. Colum- 
 bus, and Shufflin v. Columbus. 42 O. R. 585). In these cases 
 the Court said : 
 
 "Even if publication in a Sunday newspaper is not such publica- 
 tion as the statute contemplates; still where the newspaper is of gen- 
 eral circulation in the municipal corporation and it is shown to be 
 probable that notice of the proceeding reached all interested therein, 
 the irregularity of such publication in a Sunday newspaper does not 
 go to the power to assess, but brings the case within the curative pro- 
 visions of the municipal code of 18G9, §550; Rev. Stats, §2289." 
 
OKLAHOMA. 67 
 
 Most people on reading- the Ohio Sabbatli law would pro- 
 nounce it equal to the best. Its prohibitory clauses comprehend 
 most forms of Sabbath desecration, it is not weakened bv a 
 lengthy list of exceptions, its penalties are adequate. But on 
 reading some of the judicial opinions fears begin to arise lest no 
 suflficent constitutional basis be left for it to rest upon. Of a 
 thousand opinions examined relating to the Sabbath laws of the 
 different States, that of Jndge Thurman is the only one that de- 
 nies that Christianity is part of the common law. Such a denial 
 is often made by attorneys in pleading cases of violation of laws 
 against Sabbath desecration, profanity, and other vices, but it is 
 a rare thing to find it in a judicial opinion. This point is more 
 fully considered in Chapter VIII., but it should be here observed 
 I that when this fact is denied men enter upon a course of the 
 wildest kind of illogical reasoning. It is cause of profound 
 gratitude that in 1898, forty-five years after Judge Thurman 
 handed down his opinion, an opinion of the opposite kind was 
 rendered by Judge Fisher. While he does not in so many words 
 say that Christianity is part of the common law he says what 
 means the same thing when he declares that the Christian Sab- 
 bath is as much a part of the organic or fundamental law of the 
 land as is religious liberty. As the case now stands Ohio is in 
 the front rank both as to the substance of its Sabbath law and 
 the character of the opinions by which it is upheld. 
 
 OKI.-AHO-MA. (1893). 
 
 The law of Oklahoma on '"Sabbath Breaking" is found in 
 Article 4, entitled "Of Crimes against Religion and Conscience," 
 it is the same as the law of North Dakota. The penalty, how- 
 ever, is one dollar. 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA. (1S94). 
 
 "Sunday" is the title of the Sections of the law of this State 
 relating to the day of rest. They are as follows : 
 
 "1. No person or persons upon the first day of the week, shall 
 serve or execute, or cause to be served or executed, any writ, precept,, 
 warrant, order, judgment or decree, except in case of treason, felony 
 or breach of the peace; but the serving of any such writ, precept, war- 
 rant, order, judgment or decree, shall be void, to all intents and pur- 
 
68 PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 poses whatsoever; and the person or persons so serving or executing 
 the same, shall be as liable to the suit of the party grieved, and to an- 
 swer damages to him for doing 'thereof , as if he or they had done the 
 same without any writ, precept, warrant or order, judgment or decree 
 at all. 
 
 "2. No part of any act of assembly heretofore passed, shall be 
 construed to require any canal or railroad company to attend their 
 works on the Sabbath days, for the purpose of expediting or aiding 
 the passage of any boat, craft, or vehicle along the same; any clause 
 or clauses in their respective charters, imposing a penalty for not aid- 
 ing boats, crafts or vehicles to pass within a certain time, to the con- 
 trary notwithstanding. 
 
 3. If any person shall do or perform any worldly employment oi 
 business whatsoever on the Lord's day, comm.only called Sunday 
 (works of necessity and charity only excepted), shall use or practice 
 any unlawful game, hunting, shooting, sport or diversion whatsoever 
 on the same day, and be convicted thereof, every such person so of- 
 fending shall, for every such offense, forfeit and pay four dollars, to 
 be levied by distress; or in case he or she shall refuse or neglect to 
 pay the said sum, or goods and chattels cannot be found, whereof to 
 levy the same by distress, he or she shall suffer six days' imprison- 
 ment in the house of correction of the proper county; Provided, al- 
 ways, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to prohibit the 
 dressing of victuals in private families, bakehouses, lodging-houses, 
 inns and other houses of entertainment, for the use of sojourners, trav- 
 elers or strangers, or to hinder watermen from landing their passen- 
 gers, or ferrymen from carrying over the water travelers, or persons 
 removing with their families on the Lord's day, commonly called Sun- 
 day, nor to the delivery of milk or the necessaries of life, before nine 
 of the clock in the forenoon, nor after five of the clock in the after- 
 noon of the same day. * 
 
 "4. Provided always. That every such prosecution shall be com- 
 menced within seventy-two hours after the offense shall be committed. 
 "5. It shall be lawful for the select and common councils of the city 
 of Philadelphia, the corporation of the district of Southwark and the 
 commissioners of the incorporated part of the Northern Liberties, re- 
 spectively, to make, ordain and pass such ordinance or ordinances as 
 they may judge proper for the better regulation of the markets holden 
 in the said city and districts aforesaid, on the first day of the week, 
 commonly called Sunday. 
 
 ''6. So much of the act passed the 22d day of April, one thousand 
 eight hundred and ninety-four, entitled 'An act for the prevention of 
 vice and immorality, and for other purposes,' as relates to the sale of 
 
 *In LS67 the restriction upon the delivery of milk was repealed so far as it relates to the 
 Ceiuitj of Allegheny. 
 
PENy^ 1 'L VA NIA . 69 
 
 the necessaries of life, on the first day of the week, commonly called 
 Sunday, so far as respects the city and districts aforesaid, be and the 
 same is hereby repealed. 
 
 "7. All persons who are found drinking and tippling in ale-houses, 
 taverns or other public house or place, on the first day of the week, 
 commonly called Sunday, or any part thereof, shall, for every offense 
 forfeit and pay one shilling and six pence to any constable that shall 
 Jemand the same, to the use of the poor; and all constables are hereby 
 Bmpowered and by virtue of their office required, to search public houses 
 and places suspected to entertain such tipplers, and them, when found, 
 quietly to disperse; but in case of refusal, to bring the persons so re- 
 lusing before the next justice of the peace, who may commit such of- 
 fenders to the stocks, or bind them to their good behavior as to him 
 shall seem requisite. And the keepers of such ale-houses, taverns or 
 other public house or place, as shall countenance or tolerate any such 
 practices, being convicted thereof, by the view of a single magistrate, 
 his own confession, or the proof of one or more credible witnesses, 
 shall, for every offense, forfeit and pay ten shillings, to be recovered as 
 and for the uses above said. 
 
 "8. Provided always. That nothing in this act be construed to pre- 
 vent victualling-houses or other public house or place from supplying 
 the necessary occasions of travellers, inmates, lodgers or others, on 
 the first day of the week, with victuals and drink in moderation, for re- 
 freshment only; of which necessary occasion for refreshment, as also 
 moderation, the magistrate before whom complaint is made, shall be 
 judge: any law, usage or custom in this province to the contrary not- 
 withstanding. 
 
 "9. It shall not be lawful for any person or persons, to sell, trade 
 ar barter in any spirituous or malt liquors, wine or cider, on the first 
 day of the week, commonly called Sunday; or for the keeper or keepers 
 of any hotel, inn, tavern, ale house, or other public house or place 
 knowingly to allow or permit any spirituous or malt liquors, wine or 
 cider, to be drank on or within the premises or house occupied or kept 
 by such keeper or keepers, his, her or their agents or servants, on the 
 said first day of the week. 
 
 "10. Any person or persons violating the provisions of the forego- 
 ing section, shall, for each and every offense, forfeit and pay the sum 
 of fifty dollars, one-half of which shall be paid to the prosecutor, and 
 the other half to the guardians of the poor of the city or county in 
 which suit is brought, or in counties having no guardians of the poor, 
 then to the overseers of the poor of the township, ward or borough in 
 which the offense was committed; to be recovered before any mayor, 
 alderman, burgess or justice of the peace, as debts of like amount are 
 now by law recoverable, in any action of debt brought in the name of 
 the commonwealth, as well for the use of the guardians of the poor (or 
 for the overseers of the poor, or the township, ward or borough, as 
 
70 PENNS YL VA NIA . 
 
 the case may be) as for the person suing: Provided, That when any 
 prosecutor is himself a witness, on any trial under the provisions of 
 this section, then the whole penalty or forfeiture shall be paid to the 
 ;uardians or overseers as aforesaid: And provided further. That it 
 hall be a misdemeanor in office, for any such mayor, alderman, bur- 
 jess or justice of the peace, to neglect to render to the said guardians 
 »f the poor and prosecutor the amount of such penalty, within ten days 
 !rom the payment of the same. 
 
 "11. In addition to the civil penalties imposed by the last preced- 
 ing section, for a violation of the provisions of the first section of this 
 ict, every person who shall violate the provisions of that section, shall 
 be taken and deemed to have committed a misdemeanor, and shall, on 
 conviction thereof, in any criminal court in this commonwealth, be fined 
 in any sum not less than ten, nor more than one hundred dollars, and be 
 imprisoned in the county jail for a period not less than ten, nor more 
 than sixty days, at the discretion of the court. 
 
 "12. All penalties, fines and forfeitures imposed, incurred or paid, 
 under the act to which this is a supplement, except so far as part 
 thereof is payable to the prosecutor, shall be paid over to the guard- 
 ians, directors or other representatives of the poor of the city, dis- 
 trict or county in which the offense was committed. (Brightly's Pur- 
 rdon's Digest, Vol. 2, pp. 1950-1953.) 
 
 "A supplement, for the better regulation of the Sabbath. 1. That 
 the mayors of the cities of Pittsburgh and Allegheny, and the burgesses 
 if the several boroughs in the county of Allegheny, shall have and ex- 
 ercise all the powers of justices of the peace and aldermeii. In all cases 
 5f violation of the first section of an act to prevent the sale of intoxi- 
 cating liquors on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, 
 approved on the twenty-sixth day of February, Anno Domini one thou- 
 sand eight hundred and fifty-five: Provided that such mayors and bur- 
 gesses shall be subject to the proviso in the second section of said act; 
 and in case any person or persons convicted before any mayor, burgess, 
 alderman or justice of the peace of a violation of the first section of an 
 act to prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors on the first day of the 
 week, commonly called Sunday, approved on the twenty-sixth of Febru- 
 ary, Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and fifty-five, shall refuse 
 or neglect forthwith to pay the fine lawfully imposed for such violation, 
 Tvith costs, and no goods or chattels can be found whereof to levy the 
 same by distress, he, she or they shall be committed to the common jail 
 ■of the proper county for a term of not less than ten, nor more than 
 thirty days, at the discretion of the mayor, burgess, alderman, or jus- 
 tice of the peace before whom such conviction shall have been had. 
 
 "2. That the mayors and burgesses mentioned in the first section 
 of this act, shall have and exercise all the powers of justices of the 
 peace and aldermen, in all cases of violation of the first section of the 
 act approved the twenty-second of April, Anno Domini one thousand 
 seven hundred and ninety-four, entitled, "An act for the prevention of 
 
PENNSYLVANIA. 71 
 
 'Vice and immorality, and of unlawful gaming, and to restrain disorderly 
 :sports and dissipation," and in all actions for penalties for violation of 
 acts of assembly, commonly known as qui tam actions. 
 
 "3. That any person violating the provisions of the first section of 
 said act for the suppression of vice and immorality, and of unlawful 
 gaming, and to restrain disorderly sports and dissipation, approved 
 April twenty-second. Anno Domini one thousand seven hundred and 
 ninety-four, within the county of Allegheny, being summarily convicted 
 thereof before any mayor, burgess, justice of the peace or alderman, 
 shall forfeit and pay the sum of twenty-five dollars with costs, and in 
 default of payment, or of goods to levy upon to satisfy the same, shall 
 be conmiitted to the county prison for not less than ten, nor more than 
 thirty days." ( P. L. 321, IS^S.) 
 
 Seciiuii 17 of the chapter on 'Game" declares that "'There shall be no 
 hunting or shooting or fishing on the first day of the week, called Sunday ; 
 and any person oflfending against the provisions of this section shall be 
 liable to a penalty of twenty-five dollars." (Vol. 1, p. 94(5.) 
 
 The following was enacted in 1897: 
 
 "1. There shall be no hunting or shooting on the first day of the 
 week called Sunday, and any person offending against the provisions of 
 this section shall be liable to a penalty of twenty-five dollars for each 
 and every offense, or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period 
 of one day for each dollar of penalty imposed. (Brightly's Supple- 
 ment, 825.) 
 
 The constittitionality of the Pennsylvania Sabbath law was 
 ptit to the test in 181 7 in the case of the Commonwealth v. Wolf, 
 and again in 1848 in the case of Specht v. Commonwealth. The 
 law was upheld in both cases. In the latter case the contention 
 in behalf of the plaintiff, who was a Seventh Day Baptist, was 
 that the law is tmconstitutional on these grounds: 
 
 "It treats the first day of the week as a holy or sacred day, and if 
 the legislature can direct that religious observance, there is no limit to 
 their power over religious subjects. If they can direct the people to 
 stay at home quietly, they can direct them to go to church, and if they 
 can direct them to attend church, they can indicate the church to be at- 
 tended. In short, if they have any power over religious subjects, they 
 have all power. Such power would be a perfect union of Church and 
 State, so much abhorred by the people of this republic." 
 
 Judge Bell in giving the opinion of the Court said: ''The constitu- 
 tion of this State secures freedom of conscience and equality of relig- 
 ious rights. No man, living under th? protection of our institutions, 
 can be coerced to profess any form of religious belief, or to practice any 
 •ponuliar mode of worship, in preference to another. In this respect, the 
 Christian, the Jew, the Mohammedan, and the Pagan, are alike en- 
 titled to protection. Nay, the Infidel, who madly rejects all belief in a 
 Divine Essence, may safely do so, in reference to civil punishment. 
 
72 PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 so long as he refrains from the wanton and malicious proclamation of" 
 his opinions with intent to outrage the moral and religious convictions 
 
 of a community, the vast majority of whom are Christians 
 
 "Though it may have been a motive with the law-makers to prohibit 
 the profanation of a day regarded by them as sacred — and certainly 
 there are expressions used in the statute that justify this conclusion — it 
 is not perceived how this fact can vitally affect the question at issue. 
 All agree that to the well-being of society, periods of rest are absolutely 
 necessary. To be productive of the required advantage, these periods 
 must recur at stated intervals, so that the mass of which the commun- 
 ity is composed, may enjoy a respite from labor at the same time. 
 .... "Some one day must be selected, and it has been said the round of 
 the week presents none which, being preferred, might not be regarded 
 as favoring some one of the numerous religious sects into which man- 
 kind are divided. In a Christian community where a very large ma- 
 jority of the people celebrate the first day of the week as their chosen 
 period of rest from labor, it is not surprising that that day should have- 
 received the legislative sanction: and as it is also devoted to religious 
 observances, we are prepared to estimate the reason why the statute 
 should speak of it as the Lord's day, and denominate the infraction of 
 its legalized rest, a profanation. Yet this does not change the char- 
 acter of the enactment. It is still, essentially, but a civil regulation 
 made for the government of man as a member of society, and obedience 
 to it may properly be enforced by penal sanctions. To say that one of 
 the objects of the legislature was to assert the sanctity of the particular 
 day selected, is to say nothing in proof of the unconstitutionality of the 
 act, unless in this the religious conscience of others has been offended 
 and their rights invaded. 
 
 "But it is urged, with apparent conviction of its truth, that to com- 
 pel men to refrain from labor, solely from regard to the imputed holi- 
 ness of a particular day, is, within the meaning of the constitution, to 
 'control' the religious observance, and to 'interfere' with and constraini 
 the consciences of those who honestly disbelieve the asserted sanctity 
 of the selected day. We cannot assent to this. So long as no attempt 
 is made to force upon others the adoption of the belief entertained by 
 the governing power, or to comp.el a practice in accordance wi'th it, 
 so long is conscience left in the enjoyment of its natural right of in- 
 dividual decision and independent religious action. There is nothing^ 
 
 to prevent the unrestrained expression of an adverse belief The 
 
 error of the plaintiff's position is that it confounds the reason of the 
 prohibition with its actual effect, and thus mistakes the mere restraint 
 of physical exertion for the fetters that clog the freedom of mind and 
 conscience." "It intermeddles not with the natural and indefeasible 
 right of all men to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of 
 their own consciences; it compels none to attend, erect, or support any 
 place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; it 
 pretends not to control or to interfere with the rights of conscience, andi 
 
PEXXSVLVAMA. 73. 
 
 it establishes no preference for any religious establishment or mode of 
 worship. It treats no religious doctrine as paramount in the State; it en- 
 forces no unwilling attendance upon tho celebration of Divine wor- 
 ship. It says not to the Jew or Sabbatarian, You shall desecrate the 
 day you esteem as holy, and keep sacred to religion that we deem to 
 be so. It enters upon no discussion of rival claims of the first and 
 seventh days of the week, nor pretends, to bind upon the conscience of 
 any man any conclusion upon a subject which each must decide for 
 himself. It intrudes not into the domestic circle to dictate when, 
 where, or to what god its inmates shall address their orisons; nor does 
 it presume to enter the synagogue of the Israelite, or the church of the 
 Seventh-day Christians, to command or even persuade their attendance 
 in the temples of those who especially approach the altar on Sunday. 
 It does not, in the slightest degree, infringe upon the Sabbath of any 
 sect, or curtail their freedom of worship." 
 
 "The only remaining ground upon which the plaintiff in error at- 
 tacks the validity of the statute, is found in the assumption that, in 
 conscience, he is as fully bound to attend to his secular affairs upon the 
 first six days of the week, as to cease from labor on the seventh. 
 Were this so, the law which compels him to inaction upon one of the ■ 
 six might well be regarded as an invasion of his conscientious convic- 
 tions. But for this supposed article of his faith, his counsel refers us 
 to no other warrant than that command of the decalogue which 
 teaches, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; six days shalt 
 thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of 
 the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.' But without other 
 evidence than the mere suggestion of counsel, we cannot believe that 
 the religious sect to which the plaintiff in error belongs, have so con- 
 strued this commandment as to make it imperative on its members, 
 literally, to labor on every day of the week other than the seventh. 
 Such is not rationally its meaning, nor is it that assigned to the word 
 by the ancient people to whom it was originally delivered by the Deity. 
 From the beginning even until now, it is regarded by them as intended 
 to set apart a day of religious rest, but not as commanding six days of 
 labor. Within six days the Israelite was directed to do all his work, 
 in order that he might devote the seventh, uninterruptedly, to the ser- 
 vice of God, but it was never imagined that he was under an impera- 
 tive obligation to fill up each day of the other six with some worldly 
 employment" 
 
 "His Honor, Judge Coulter, concurred in the judgment of the 
 court, as to the constitutionality of the act of Assembly but 
 dissented from the grounds , assumed in the argument He held it 
 to be constitutional, because it guarded the Christian Sabbath from 
 profanation; and, in the language of the act, prohibited work or world- 
 ly employment on the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday; and not be- 
 cause of the mere usefulness of the day as a day of rest and cessation, 
 from worldly labor." (8 Pa. 312). 
 
74 PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 Again in the case of Johnston v. the Commonwealth the 
 constitutional ground of Sabbath laws was thoroughly con- 
 sidered. Judge Woodward, in giving the opinion of the court, 
 said : 
 
 "If we decide that necessity and charity mean convenience (and 
 this is the essence of the demand), we emasculate the statute, and 
 sweep away the guards which the legislature threw around, not only 
 the morals of society, but the physical health and well-being of both 
 men and. beasts. If Sunday be thus surrendered to the fierce rivalry of 
 efforts for promoting the convenience of the public, it might as well 
 be blotted from the calendar of days,. But we have no right to give 
 up this institution. It has come down to us with the most solemn 
 sanctions, both of God and man, and if we do not appreciate it as we 
 ought, we are, at the least, bound to preserve it. We liave no power to 
 repeal the Act of 1794, nor to make its exemption of worlds of charity 
 and necessity include works of mere convenience. Our duty requires us 
 to construe the statute so as to accomplish its purpose, which was to 
 enforce an observance of Sunday, instead of obliterating it 
 
 "Rest and the public worship of Almighty God, were the primary 
 objects of the institution, both as a divine and civil appointment. . . . 
 
 "Our fathers who planted in our fundamental law the assertion of 
 those immortal truths, that all men have a natural and indefeasible right 
 to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consci- 
 ence, that no man can be compelled to attend, erect, or support any 
 place of public worship, and that no human authority can in any case 
 whatever control or interfere with the rights of conscience, enacted 
 also the statutes of 1705, 1786 and 1794, for the suppression of worldly 
 employments on Sunday. So far from conflicting with those invaluable 
 rights of conscience, they regarded such statutes as indispensable to 
 secure them. It would be a small boon to the people of Pennsylvania 
 to declare their indefeasible right to worship God according to the dic- 
 tates of their consciences amid the din and confusion of secular em- 
 ployments, and with desecrations on every hand of what they conscien- 
 tiously believe to be hallowed time. These statutes were not designed 
 to compel men to go to church, or to worship God in any manner incon- 
 sistent with personal preferences; but to compel a cessation of those 
 employments which are calculated to interfere with the rights of those 
 who choose to assemble for public worship. The day was set apart for 
 a purpose, and the penal enactments guard it, but they leave every 
 man free to use it for that purpose or not. If he wish to use it for the 
 purpose designed, the law protects him from the annoyance of others — 
 if he do not, it restrains him from annoying those who do so use it. 
 Thus the law, without oppressing anybody, becomes auxiliary to the 
 rights of conscience. 
 
 "And there are other rights intimately associated with the rights of 
 ■conscience, which are worth preserving. The right to rear a family 
 
PENNSYLVANIA. 75 
 
 "With a becoming regard for the institutions of Christianity, and with- 
 out compelling them to witness hourly infractions of one of its funda- 
 mental laws— the right to enjoy the peace and good order of society 
 and the increased securities of life and property which result from a 
 decent observance of Sunday— the right of the poor to rest from labor, 
 without diminution of wages, or loss of employment— the right of 
 beasts of burden to repose one-seventh of their time from their unre- 
 quited toil— these are real and substantial interests which the legisla- 
 ture sought to secure by this enactment; and when has legislation 
 aimed at higher objects?" (22 Pa. 102, 1853). 
 
 In Omit V. Commonwealth, involviug the right of a licensed innkeeper 
 to sell liquor on the Sabbath, the Supreme Court held that such sales are 
 forbidden. The licensing of taverns for a year does not give the right to 
 sell for each of the three hundred and sixty-five days. "As well might it 
 be urged that a contract for hiring for a year would compel a laborer to 
 work on Sundays, or that an auctioneer who is licensed under Acts of 
 Assembly for a 3'ear, might pursue his business on the fifty-two Sundays of 
 i;he j'ear " "Sunday cannot be given up. Strangers and travelers have no 
 light to demand hospitality at such a price. Rest one day in seven was en- 
 joined b}' the precept and example of the Author of our existence and gov- 
 ernment, founding itself on Divine appointment, has made it a civil institu- 
 tion. 'For the ease of creation,' said our old Act of 1705, as well as that 
 people may enjoy religious privileges, the first day of the week shall be 
 observed. They justly regarded it as essential to rebgious freedom, as well 
 as to physical health and strength. It is an institution deeply seated in the 
 religious effections of the community, and one of the foundations of public 
 morals, and of our political fabric. The policy of no such system as that of 
 licensed inns can prevail to abridge it of its proportions or its power." 
 (21 Pa. 426, 1853.) 
 
 In the case of Mahoney v. Cook the Supreme Court said: "The 
 ■declaration that Christianity is part of the law of the land, is a sum- 
 mary description of an existing and very obvious condition of our in- 
 stitutions. We are a Christian people, in so far as we have entered into 
 the Spirit of Christian institutions, and become imbued with the senti- 
 ments and principles of Christianity; and we cannot be imbued with 
 them, and yet prevent them from entering into and influencing, more or 
 less, all our social institutions, customs and relations, as well as all 
 our individual modes of thinking and acting. It is involved in otir so- 
 cial nature, that even those among tis who reject Christianity 
 cannot possibly get clear of its influence, or reject those sentiments, 
 customs and principles which it has spread among the people, so that, 
 like the air we breathe, they have become the common stock of the 
 whole country, and essential elements of its life. 
 
 "It is perfectly natural therefore, that a Christian people should 
 have laws to protect their day of rest from desecration. Regarding 
 it as a day necessarily and divinely set apart for rest from worldly em- 
 ;ployments, and for the enjoyment of spiritual privileges, it is simply 
 
76 PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 absurd to suppose that they would leave it without any legislative pro- 
 tection from the disorderly and immoral. The sentiment that sustains 
 it must find expression through those who are elected to represent the 
 will of their constituents." (26 Pa. 342, 1855). This was a suit to re- 
 cover damages for the wrecking of a boat on Sabbath in a navigable 
 stream by an obstruction placed there by the defendant. Damages were 
 awarded. 
 
 In the Commonwealth v. Nesbit the Supreme Court again 
 upheld the law, saying : 
 
 "We are not forgetting that the public acts of our Pennsylvania 
 ancestors abound with declarations in favor of liberty of conscience, 
 and that some regard these declarations as inconsistent with the Sun- 
 day laws. But a little reflection shows that they indicate the moral 
 ideal to which all government ought to approach as nearly as possible, , 
 rather than a positive principle of legislation. And in applying such 
 declaration, we must bear in mind, that they proceed from an earnestly 
 Christian people, and must receive a practical interpretation. 
 
 "They never thought of tolerating paganism or the principle of 
 ecclesiastical supremacy in civil affairs, on the ground of liberty of 
 conscience. They could not admit this, as a civil justification of human 
 sacrifices, or parricide, or infanticide, or thuggism, or of such modes 
 of worship as the disgusting and corrupting rites of the Dyonisia, and 
 Aphrodisia, and Eleusinia, and other festivals of Greece and Rome. . . . 
 
 "Every Christian man is sure that it is his religion that has sup- 
 pressed the pagan customs just alluded to, and that to it is due the 
 large advance in justice, benevolence, truth, and purity that belongs 
 to modern civilization; that it has purified and elevated the family re- 
 lations; that it has so elevated the moral standards of society, that, 
 the indecencies, and cruelties, and cheats of paganism are now con- 
 demned by custom and by law, as crimes. And he is very sure that 
 the Sabbath and its institutions were the prominent means of this pro- 
 gress, and are essential to its maintenance and continuance. 
 
 "How, then, is it possible for a Christian people to avoid protecting- 
 such a day and its institutions. If there are men who oppose them as 
 superstitions, let them at least respect them as essential constituents of 
 the people's life, which cannot possibly be laid aside at will. If strangers 
 to our institutions dislike these particular ones, let them accord a reason- 
 able respect to us, and indulgence to our customs, and they will soon be 
 reconciled to both, and find other matters more needing their reform- 
 ing efforts By our Sunday laws, and our other laws against vice 
 
 and immorality, we do not mean to enforce religion; we admit that to- 
 be impossible. But we do mean to protect our customs, no matter that 
 they may have originated in our religion; for they are essential parts 
 of our social life. Instinctively, we defend and protect them. It is 
 mere social self-defensee, and not a matter of choice." (34 Pa. 398,, 
 1859). 
 
 There is no ambiguity in the language used in the case of Common- 
 
PENNS YL VA NIA . 7 7 
 
 "wealth V. Eyer when it was declared that "Sabbath-breaking is a vio- 
 lation of a divine as well as a human law." (1 S. and R. 347). 
 
 In 1867 one of the most important cases that has arisen in 
 Pennsylvania came before the Supreme Court of that State. 
 This was the case of Sparhawk v. Union Passenger Railway Co. 
 This company, having constructed a street railway in Phila- 
 delphia, began running its cars on Sabbath. Sparhawk and 
 •others brought a bill seeking to have this act declared unlawful, 
 and asking for an injunction restraining the company from run- 
 ning its cars on the Sabbath, on the ground that it deprived them 
 •of their right to a quiet Sabbath and interrupted the worship of 
 'God. Kenton, a stockholder in the company also brought a 
 similar suit. The case was first heard by the Supreme Court at 
 Nisi Prius, and the injunction was granted. Judge Strong de- 
 livered the opinion of the court. He declared : 
 
 "Christianity is part of the common law of this State. In saying 
 
 this I utter no new doctrine But if Christianity is a part of the 
 
 common law, it carries with it a civil obligation to abstain on the 
 Lord's day from all worldly labor and business, except works of neces- 
 sity and mercy. Christianity without a Sabbath would be no Christian- 
 ity." 
 
 ..."The legislature has not exempted from the prohibition acts 
 which may conduce to the convenience, or contribute to supply the 
 necessities, of individuals, or even large portions of the people. It 
 must be presumed they considered what inconveniences would follow a 
 prohibition of worldly labor on the Lord's day. In view of them, as 
 well as of the evils flowing from the absence of a prohibition of such 
 labor, they enacted the statute of 1794. Their controlling object was 
 to protect the community against vice and immorality. This they at- 
 tempted to do by declaring illegal all worldly labor and business, ex- 
 cept works of necessity and charity. But they did not overlook pub- 
 lic and individual convenience. In the proviso of the act they declare 
 how far worldly labor might be done, not necessary to the agent, but 
 '^contributing to the necessities of others. The enumeration in the 
 proviso of things allowed to be done, shows what was intended by ex- 
 cepting works of necessity from the prohibitory clause. 
 
 "If it was not meant by the act to forbid work which might be a 
 convenience or even a necessity in some sense to others than the la- 
 borer, the proviso is entirely superfluous. It is plain, however, that 
 when they excepted works of necessity, they meant works of necessity 
 to him who does them, and not to others. If this is not so, the act is 
 without force. There is very little, if any worldly business that does 
 not subserve the convenience and even the necessities of some part of 
 the community. Food, clothes, shelter and furniture are undoubted 
 mecessities. But may the agriculturist justify his ordinary worldly 
 
yS PENNS VL VA NIA . 
 
 business on Sunday by the plea that he is thereby furnishing foocf 
 for the hungry? May the cotton-mills, woolen-mills, and clothing es- 
 tablishments of the country be driven, as usual, and without cessation, 
 on the Lord's day, because they are thus contributing to provide cloth- 
 ing for those who need it? Is the business of the carpenter or cabinet- 
 maker to move on through the seven days of the week, uninterruptedly 
 and according to law, because others may need houses or furniture? 
 May the chemist keep his laboratory in full operation on Sunday, be- 
 cause medicines are necessary? All these questions, and a multitude 
 of others of similar character, must be answered in the affirmative, if 
 running railway cars on Sunday on city passenger railways is a work 
 of necessity within the meaning of the exception in the act of 1794. It 
 may be doubted whether keeping theaters and places of public amuse- 
 ment open on Sunday might not be justified by the same line of argu- 
 ment. 
 
 "Pews in churches are real property, recognized as such by the 
 law. They are the subject of sale, and they often bring prices equal 
 to the value of many small farms. An action may be maintained for 
 disturbance of their enjoyment. But the whole value of a pew consists 
 in the facilities it affords for joining in public worship, and for re- 
 ceiving the instruction given in churches. To render it unfit in any 
 way for the purpose for which such property is designed or used, is 
 its destruction, and it may amount as fully to an irreparable private 
 wrong as is any tmlawful act against which a chancellor enjoins." 
 
 The defendants put in answers to these bills,' admitting the 
 running- of the cars, but denying that this was a violation of the 
 law. Testimony was taken on their behalf, from ministers,, 
 physicians and others, to show that the running of the cars on 
 the Sabbath was necessary in attending to sick and going to< 
 places of worship, affording recreation to poor people living in 
 badly ventilated neighborhoods, etc. 
 
 It was agreed that all of the affidavits, etc., read by either 
 party, or presented at the argument of the motions for prelimi- 
 nary injunctions, should be considered as proof, taken in both 
 cases before an examiner, and that decrees pro forma be made- 
 in the cases in favor of the plaintififs, in accordance with the 
 prayer of each bill, and the case certified to the Supreme 
 Court in banc, the injunction granted to remain until the entry 
 of the final decree. 
 
 The temporary injunction was dissolved by the Supreme 
 Court. But in so doing Judge Thompson who delivered the 
 opinion on the first bill, said : 
 
 "I fully concede that the opinion of my Brother Strong at Nisi 
 Pruis, and the law and authorities referred to by him, establish very 
 
PENNS YL VA N (A. 79 
 
 clearly, that the business of running passenger cars on the Lord's day, 
 commonly called "Sunday," to use the language of the Act of 1794, is 
 a violation of that act; and I agree that it is within its penalties." 
 
 It was held however that the damage to property was not such as 
 to warrant the issuing of an injunction. On the second bill a similar 
 opinion was rendered by Judge Woodward. (54 Pa. 401. 1867). 
 
 In Commonwealth v. Teaman before the Court of Quarter 
 Sessions a charge was brought of disorderly conduct in sehing 
 newspapers on the Sabbath. Tn rendering its decision the Court 
 
 said: 
 
 "The design of the law is to secure not only a day of rest, but as 
 it is termed in the act of 1705, a day on which 'the people may devote 
 themselves to religious and pious exercises.' Those who choose to 
 avail themselves of the privileges are to be protected from disturbance 
 
 and molestation by others who disregard them The crying of 
 
 newspapers in the public streets on Sunday is a breach of the peace. 
 As well might the oysterman cry his oysters, or the charcoal man 
 ring his bell. The peace of Sunday may be disturbed by acts which, 
 on other days, cannot be complained of — such acts as interfere with the- 
 rights which the law vouchsafes to the people who desire to conserve 
 that day as a period of religious observance and of rest from worldly 
 business." (1 Phil. 460, 1853). 
 
 In 1893 it was declared in Commonwealth v. Matthews that "Selling 
 Sunday newspapers is a performance of worldly employment within 
 the meaning of the act and does not come within the exceptions of the- 
 act as works of necessity." (152 P. S. 166, 1893). 
 
 In Commonwealth v. Houston it was held that "A manager, direc- 
 tor and stockholder of a corporation which publishes a newspaper on 
 Sunday may be convicted under this act; and this though he is never 
 at his office on Sunday, nor doing any work on that day." (C. C. 395). 
 
 "Carrying on the business of selling milk in an open store to all 
 who may call for it is a worldly employment, and not within the pro- 
 viso permitting the delivery of milk." 
 
 "The proviso, in terms, places milk and all the necessaries of Hfe on 
 the same footing. If you can sell milk on Sunday as a worldly employment 
 or business, you can sell sugar, tea, butter, bread and everv other article of 
 food ordinarily used and necessary for human comfort and enjoyment. 
 
 Deliver}^ does not in any sense comprehend a sale, and the busi- 
 ness of delivering articles is entirely distinct from the business of selling 
 them." (Com. v. Martin, 7 Pa. C. C. 154, 1889.) 
 
 A subscription for the erection of a church is a work of charity and 
 is within the exception. (Dale v. Knipp, 98 Pa. 389, 1881). 
 
 "It is a violation of the act to charge compulsory prices for ad- 
 mission to a camp-meeting on Sunday." (Com. v, Weidner, 4 C. 0. 
 437, 1888). 
 
 In Splane v. Commonwealth the Court of Common Pleas Number 1 
 
-So PENNS YL VANfA. 
 
 of Allegheny County, held that "vSelling soda water a? a beverage on Sun- 
 day in connection with drugs or other goods is a violation of the Act of 
 1794." "It was urged by counsel for defendant upon the argument of this 
 case that the proviso to the Act of 1705, which declares that 'nothing in this 
 act shall be construed to prevent victualling houses, or other public house or 
 place from supplying the necessary occasions of travelers, inmates, lodgers 
 or others, on the first day of the week, with victuals and drink in modera- 
 tion for refreshment only,' would apply to a druggist, store-keeper or con- 
 fectioner, or other person who furnished drinks, such as soda water or 
 lemonade. ... It can hardly be said with any regard to the 
 significance of language that a drug store falls within the proviso as to the 
 character of the place where the victuals were to be dressed, or that soda 
 water is within the ordint<ry meaning of the word 'victuals.' It would 
 sound somewhat strangely to hear one designate the 'charging' of a soda 
 fountain and the drawing of a glass of soda water for use as 'dressing 
 victuals.' " (35 P. Iv. J. 102, 1887.) 
 
 In upholding this opinion the Supreme Court, to which the case was 
 carried, declared that "Few acts upon our statute books are of more import- 
 ance to the welfare of the good citizens of this Commonwealth than the act 
 of 1794. The weekly day of rest is, from a mere physical and political 
 standpoint, of infinitely greater value than is ordinarily supposed, since it 
 not only affords a healthful relaxation to persons in every position of life, 
 but throws a strong barrier in the way of the degredation and oppression of 
 the laboring classes, who, of all others, need this ever recurring day of rest 
 and relief from weekly toil. It is, therefore, neither harsh nor unjust that 
 men of capital should be required to obey those statutes which have been 
 wisely ordained for the protection of the Sabbath." (35 P. L. J. 256, 1888.) 
 
 The Court of Quarter Session of Allegheny County, in Commonwealth 
 V. Burry, involving the sale of ice cream, cakes, pies, lunches, etc., on 
 the Sabbath day by a baker, declared that "the business conducted by the 
 defendant, that is, the sale of ice cream, cakes, pies, lunches, etc., is a 
 worldly employment prohibited by the Act of 1794, and not within the 
 ■exceptions to the Act. ... A stated day of rest is essential to 
 the 'ease of creation,' for the recreation of man and beast. If such a day 
 were not enforced by law, the greed of man would force the utmost amount 
 of labor from all men whose necessit ^s subject them to their will, as they 
 would from the beast who has, no Will to oppose them. It is legislation de- 
 signed to protect the weak against the strong, and, as such, should have the 
 hearty support of all men who regard their own interest and the cause of 
 humanity. The courts have always regarded it as wise legislation, which is 
 entitled to a fair interpretation and full enforcement." (C. C. 481, 1888.) 
 
 This case was appealed to the Supreme Court and the opinion sustained. 
 <1 Mona. 89, 1889.) 
 
 It is held that the sale and delivery of ice — at least in a great city dur- 
 ing the heat of summer — is a work of necessity within the exception to the 
 Act of 1794. (Com. v. Linaugh, 13 D. R. 486. 1894. ) 
 
 In view of the conditions and usages of the present time, the running 
 -of street cars in a large city and its suburbs on Sunday is a work of neces. 
 
PENNSYLVANIA. 8i 
 
 sity, and is nol a violation of the Act of 1794. (Com. v. Berks County 
 Prison Warden, 11 D. R. 45, 1901.) 
 
 "Repairing a railroad track on Sunday is a work of necessity and char- 
 ity. (Com. V. Fields, 4 C. C. 434.) "So is the sale of railroad tickets for 
 the purpose of attending a religious campnieeting." (Com. v. Fulton, Ibid, 
 
 429.) 
 
 "For a licensed inn-keeper to sell cigars on Sunday either to his 
 guests or strangers" is a violation of the act. (Baker v. Com. 5 C. C. 
 10). 
 
 It is a violation of the law "to pump water out of oil wells on 
 Sunday as a matter of convenience and profit." (Com. v. Funk, 9 C. 
 C. 277). 
 
 "Operating a steamboat on Sunday for the carrying of excursion- 
 ists, is worldly employment which is prohibited." (Com. v. Rees, 10 
 C. C. 545). 
 
 The value of the Sabbath law was maintained by the 
 Supreme Court, in the case of Friedebom v. Commonweadlth in 
 :the following terms: 
 
 "There are but few of our statutes which in principle are of more 
 importance than the act of the 22d of April, 1794, commonly called the 
 "Sunday act," in that it recognizes the first day of the week as a Sab- 
 bath of rest for the well disposed and religious people of our Common- 
 wealth, and we can entertain but little respect for those who wilfully 
 and persistently violate its prescriptions. Against all such its penalty 
 should be enforced until they are taught that a respect for its provis- 
 ions may at least be profitable from a pecuniary point of view. The fine 
 imposed is but light, far too light, indeed, to prevent the violation of 
 the statute by great corporations and heavy capitalists, who regard 
 their own profit rather than the public welfare." (113 Pa. 242, 1886). 
 
 In this case PViedebom was charged with selling to six dif- 
 ferent persons, quantities of cigars, tobacco, cider, spruce beer 
 and candy, and had been fined by a justice of the peace for each 
 person to whom he sold. The Supreme Court held that there 
 can be but one violation of the law by the same person in one 
 day and consequently but one fine can be imposed. 
 
 In the Supreme Court, during the January term of (1891 the 
 case of Commonwealth v. Waldman was heard. (25 C. 89). 
 Waldman was charged with violating the Sabbath law of the 
 -State by keeping his barber shop open and in full operation on 
 the first day of the week. It was maintained that this was done 
 for the accommodation of persons who cannot get shaved upon 
 Saturday ; and persons whose beards are so strong that they are 
 shaved every day in order to be cleanly. Judge Pennypacker in 
 his opinion said of the law of 1794 : 
 
82 PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 "It was enacted immediately after the visitation of Philadelphia br 
 the yellow fever in 1793, at a time when that scourge was widely re- 
 garded as a punishment inflicted upon the community because of in- 
 creasing levity and worldliness, and its object plainly was by the im- 
 position of penalties to compel the observance of Sunday It is^ 
 
 quite clear that he (the defendant) was influenced by the usual motive? 
 which govern men when following their worldly vocations, the se- 
 curing of trade, the gathering in of compensation, and the laying away 
 of profit. If the position so strenuously and ably urged by 
 counsel for the defendant were sound, it would result in the- 
 entire abrogation of the act of 1794, because the same process 
 of reasoning would throw open substantially all the avenues of 
 business life. In a large community such as this, there can always be- 
 found some hungry to whom the baker may supply bread, some needy 
 to whom the tailor may furnish clothing, and some wanderer in want 
 of transportation. And, to extend the thought further, the baker can- 
 not bake without coal, and the railway cannot carry without iron. If 
 there are persons so closely tied to their occupations during the week 
 that they cannot find sufficient time to get shaved except upon Sun- 
 days, the same want of time will prevent them from seeking the shoe- 
 maker, the plumber, and the forgeman upon the ordinary days of la- 
 bor." 
 
 The numerous cases here cited will give but an inadequate- 
 idea of the controversy that has been and still is carried on in 
 Pennsylvania over the Sabbath law. Repeated efforts have been 
 made to secure an opinion by the Supreme Court against its 
 constitutionality. These have all failed. The law has been uni- 
 formly upheld, sometimes on one ground and sometimes on an- 
 other. Frequently the Divine authority back of the law has been 
 set forth. Still more frequently has the law been sustained be- 
 cause Christianity is part of the common law. 
 
 In recent years enemies of the law seem to have abandoned 
 the attack on the line of its constitutionality and have turned 
 their attention to the legislature, hoping that amendments might 
 be secured that would practically annul the better part of the law. 
 The most recent of these efforts proposed the following : 
 
 "Be it enacted etc. hereafter it shall be lawful to sell Drugs, Medi- 
 cines, Soda and Mineral Waters, and other harmless and non-intoxi- 
 cating drinks. Bread, Oysters, Cakes, Pastry, Ice Cream, Candy, Milk, 
 Fruit, Cigars, and Tobacco and to prepare, print and sell Newspapers 
 on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday." 
 
 The Christian citizens of the State, however, made their 
 voices heard in opposition' to this proposal, as they had done to- 
 like proposals in former years, and the bill was killed in the Com- 
 
SOUTH DAKOTA. 83 
 
 mittee to which it had been referred. With the exception of the 
 inadequate penalty of four dollars except in Allegheny County 
 where it is twenty-five, this law ranks as one of the best, and 
 some of the judicial opinions arc among the most profound. 
 
 SOUTH DAKOTA (1903). 
 
 Chapter 4 of the Penal Code of this State is entitled "Crimes 
 against Religion and Conscience." The sections relating to "Sab- 
 bath Breaking" are as follows : 
 
 "39. The first day of the week being by general consent set apart 
 for rest and religious uses, the law forbids to be done on that day cer- 
 tain acts deemed useless and serious interruptions of the repose and 
 religious liberty of the community. 
 
 "40. Any violation of this prohibition is Sabbath-breaking. 
 
 "41. Under the term 'day' as employed in the phrase 'first day 
 of the week,' in the seven sections following, is included all the timd' 
 from midnight to midnight. 
 
 "42. The following are the acts forbidden to be done on the first 
 day of the week, the doing of any of which is Sabbath-breaking: 
 
 "1. Servible labor. 
 
 "2. Public sports. 
 
 "3. Trades, manufacturers and mechanical employments. 
 
 "4. Public traffic. 
 
 "5. Serving process. 
 
 "43. All manner of servile labor on the first day of the week is 
 prohibited, excepting works of necessity and charity. 
 
 "44. It is a sufiicient defense in proceedings for servile labor on the 
 first day of the week, to show that the accused uniformily keps an- 
 other day of the week as holy time, and does not labor upon that day, 
 and that the labor complained of was done in such manner as not to 
 interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of the 
 week as holy time. 
 
 "45. All shooting, sporting, horse-racing, gaming or other public 
 sports, upon the first day of the week, are prohibited. 
 
 "46. All trades, manufacturers and mechanical employments, upon 
 the first day of the week, are prohibited. 
 
 "47. All manner of public selling, or offering, or exposing for sale 
 publicly, of any commodities upon the first day of the week is prohib- 
 ited, except that meats, milk and fish may be sold at any time before 
 nine o'clock in the morning, and except that food may be sold to be 
 eaten upon the premises where sold, and drugs and medicines and surgi- 
 cal appliances may be sold at any time of the day. 
 
 "48. All service of legal process of any description, upon the first 
 day of the week, is prohibited, except in cases of breach of the peace. 
 
84 TENNESSEE. 
 
 or when sued out for the apprehension of a person charged with crime, 
 or except where such service ^all be specially authorized by law. 
 
 "49. Every person guilty of Sabbath breaking is punishable by a 
 fine of one dollar for each offense. 
 
 "50. The fines prescribed in this chapter for profane swearing and 
 for Sabbath brealdng may be collected in the manner prescribed by 
 law, for collection of debts; but no property shall be exempt from exe- 
 cution which has been taken to satisfy any such fines and costs. 
 
 "51. Every inn-keeper, or person licensed to sell liquors, who sells 
 or gives away any strong or spirituous liquors or wine, upon Sunday, 
 is guilty of a misdemeanor. 
 
 "53. Every master or other person engaged in navigating a steam- 
 boat, who allows any liquors mentioned in the last section to be sold 
 on his boat on Sunday, while stopping at any wharf, landing, city or 
 town in this State, is guilty of a misdemeanor." 
 
 The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota has declared that 
 "Payments fully made for Sunday labor cannot be recovered on the 
 ground of the invalidity of a contract for Sunday labor. The courts will 
 neither assist in enforcing such contract, nor in recovering what has 
 been paid under it, but will leave the parties where they have put them- 
 selves, they being in pari delictu." (5 S. D. 299, 1894). 
 
 It was held that "Where parties meet on Sunday, and talk over and 
 substantially agree upon the terms of a purchase and sale of a pair of 
 horses, during which representations are made by the seller which 
 would constitute a warranty of soundness, and then agree that they 
 should meet again on the next day, when secured notes should be given 
 for the purchase price, and the horses then transferred to the purchas- 
 er, which was done, the warranty took legal effect, as such, only when 
 the trade was completed and the property in the horses passed to the 
 purchaser, and was not void, as a Sunday contract." (6 S. D. 221, 
 1894). 
 
 The statute of South Dakota is weak principally in the 
 ridiculously low fine of one dollar. 
 
 TENNESSEE. (1896.) 
 
 Chapter 11 of Title 12 of the Code of Tennessee is entitled 
 "Of Violating the Sabbath, Profanity." The following sections 
 relate to the Sabbath : 
 
 "3029. If any merchant, artificer, tradesman, farmer, or other per- 
 son shall be guilty of doing or exercising any of the common avoca- 
 tions of life, or of causing or permitting the same to be done by his 
 children or servants, acts of real necessity or charity excepted, on Sun- 
 day, he shall, on due conviciton thereof before any justice of the peace 
 of the county, forfeit and pay three dollars, one half to the person who 
 will sue for the same, the other half for the use of the county. 
 
TENNESSEE'. 85 
 
 "3030. It shall be a misdemeanor for any person to carry on the 
 business of barbering on Sunday in Tennessee; and any person found 
 guilty of violating this section shall be fined not less than twenty-five 
 dollars nor more than fifty dollars, or imprisoned in the county jail 
 not less than fifteen nor more than thirty days, or both, in the discre- 
 tion of the court. 
 
 "3031. Any person who shall hunt, fish or play at any game of 
 sport, or be drunk on Sunday, as aforesaid, shall be subject to the same 
 proceedings and liable to the same penalties as those who work on the 
 Sabbath." ' (pp. 684, 685). 
 
 Section 2013 forbids the selling of any article of traffic on the Sab- 
 bath within view of any worshipping assembly in such manner as to 
 disturb such assembly. 
 
 Section 5671 forbids the retail of spirituous liquors on the Sab- 
 bath. 
 
 Civil processes may be issued on the Sabbath if the defendant is 
 removing or is about to remove himself or property beyond the juris- 
 diction of the court of justice applied to. 
 
 In 1883. in the case of Mayor, etc., of Nashville v. Linch, 
 the constitntionalitv of Sabbath laws was considered. Judge 
 Cooke delivered the opinion of the Court affirming the right of 
 the city to pass such ordinances, but Justice Freeman supple- 
 mented this with an opinion in which he said : 
 
 "Far back in the life and law of the people from whom we derive 
 our descent, whose usages and traditions have been handed down to us 
 as our own, we have everywhere, for a thousand years and more, a 
 recognition of the Christian Sunday as one of the institutions as char- 
 acteristic of our social organism as is the marriage institution, and that 
 to a single wife. That the peculiar view of the sanctity of the day 
 characterizing the opinions of many have been carried to extreme 
 lengths, and embodied a spirit of fanatical zeal for the day simply, 
 may be conceded." "Be this as it may, the day has been observed in 
 some form, and kept up among us and the people from whom we derive 
 our institutions, for more than a thousand years. Its ordinary uses are 
 well known, and these follow as implications, and become part of the 
 institution itself, subject to such civil regulation and modification as 
 may be deemed best conducive to promote the ends of a society in 
 which such an institution exists, and is to be perpetuated. 
 
 "The due regulation of such an institution, with such traditions 
 and usages as have for so long accreted around it, would naturally be 
 such as tended to aid the ends supposed to be desirable, and advanced 
 by such observances as had grown up among us, or had been trans- 
 mitted from other days to us. 
 
 "But there is another view of this question which I wish to pre- 
 sent. It is well known, as any other universally seen fact, that on 
 Sunday our people in the main habitually attend some one of the many 
 
S6 TENNESSEE. 
 
 Christian churches in country or town, which make up another well 
 known feature of the great civilization of which we are a part. That 
 in these churches there is carried on in some one or other of forms rec- 
 ognized by these various churches public services, in which the leading 
 
 elements are worship of the one God of Christendom Who can 
 
 estimate lightly (as we sometimes hear all this spoken of) the universal 
 influence of all this moral and religious teaching upon the life of our 
 
 people? That a sound morality is essential to the higher life of 
 
 every community is conceded by us. That to conserve and strengthen 
 such morality is as a matter of public policy one of the most, if not the 
 supremely desirable end of social regulation, would not be hard to 
 
 demonstrate It being clear that the moral culture of our people 
 
 as a mass is almost entirely derived, either directly or indirectly from 
 the influence brought to bear on the public conscience, through the 
 agency of the religious institutions for worship and teaching, which do 
 their work on Sunday, it follows that any regulation tending to in- 
 crease the efficiency of these agencies is one of vital public concern, 
 and demanded by the best interest of society. If all the occupations of 
 a great city, or even a village, were permitted to be carried on as usual 
 on this day consecrated to worship and moral teaching, then it needs 
 no argument to show that such interruptions to such exercises would 
 continually occur, prevention of attendance on the part of thous- 
 ands who would otherwise attend, that this mighty source of moral in- 
 fluence would be weakened and greatly enfeebled in its beneficent work. 
 No community can afford to permit any burden on the religious in- 
 struction and moral life of its people without an injury and deteriora- 
 tion that will tend to increase crime and give vice dominance unless it 
 will follow the path that leads toward destruction to all the highest 
 
 and most sacred interests for which society is organized I am 
 
 prepared to say all private gain must and should be subordinated to the 
 higher moral ends in which is enshrined so much of the best interests 
 of the great social organization which serves the end of giving protec- 
 tion to life, liberty, property and reputation of all." (12 Lea 499). 
 
 Again the constitutionality of the law was put to the test in 
 189Q in the case of Breyer v. the State. In this case the Supreme 
 Court said : 
 
 "It is very evident that the judicial sanction of Sunday laws, 
 though they have been attacked on many points, has been very nearly 
 unanimous. That such laws are not repugnant to fundamental consti- 
 tutional principles is now so universally established in every jurisdic- 
 tion in which such laws have been attacked, that it would seem to be 
 settled as fully as judicial decisions can settle anything. (18 Pick. 
 103). 
 
 An effort to obtain a deliverance against the constitutionality of 
 the law requiring barbers to close their shops on Sabbath was unsuc- 
 cessful. (102 Tenn. 103). 
 
 This court values the moral influence of the Sabbath upon the pub- 
 
UTAH. 87 
 
 lie. In Gunter et. al. v. the State it was declared that "Flagrant vio- 
 lations of the Sabbath day do tend to debauch the public morals." (1 
 Lea, 129, 1878). 
 
 Whether the law applies to those who keep another day as the 
 Sabbath was decided affirmatively in Parker v. the State. The Court 
 said: 
 
 "The statute makes it unlawful for any one of the enumerated 
 classes to follow his ordinary secular avocation on the Sabbath day be- 
 cause it is immoral and is of pernicious effect, and though it may be 
 conceded a single offense may be liable only to the penalty prescribed 
 l)y the statute, yet a succession of such acts becomes a nuisance and is 
 indictable." "The defendant offered to prove that he belonged to a 
 'Christian sect' who keeps the seventh, instead of the first day of the 
 week, as Sunday. A general prohibition against doing worldly business 
 on the Lord's day extends to persons who conscientiously observe the 
 seventh day of the week as the Christian Sabbath." (16 Lea. 476). 
 
 It is illegal to deliver on Sabbath goods sold on Saturday. 
 "If we should hold a contrary view, any merchant who was 
 pressed for time, or with a rush of business, might separate 
 and mark purchases on the night of Saturday, and delay delivery until 
 the next day, and thus spend the Sabbatli in winding up the business 
 of the week or day preceding. (19 Pick 726). 
 
 The publication of a city ordinance in a Sunday paper is valid. 
 "It is the purpose of the publication of an ordinance to bring it to the 
 attention of the public, and it appears that the publication in a Sunday 
 newspaper is the most effective notice that could be given in the City 
 of Knoxville" (Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Com. 107 Tenn. 647) . 
 
 There has been some hesitancy by the Supreme Court, as to the 
 legality of contracts made on the Sabbath. In Amis v. Kyle, it was held 
 that a note given on Sabbath is valid, and that a contract to deliver 
 horses on a certain date and that date falling on Sabbath might be law- 
 fully fulfilled on that day, the giving of notes and the delivery of horses 
 not being the ordinary callings of the parties. (2 Yerger 31, 1820). 
 
 At the time this opinion was rendered the law forbade labor in 
 one's ordinary calling only. 
 
 At a later date however, doubt was thrown on the correctness 
 of this opinion, the court merely declaring that if such contracts are 
 to be held void they must be technically completed on the Lord's day, 
 and reserving its opinion whether for that reason they are void. (6 
 Lea. 288, 1880). 
 
 The law of this State would be improved by raising the 
 penalt}' for violating- section 3029 from three to twenty-iive dol- 
 lars. 
 
 UTAH. 
 
 The Penel Code of Utah contains the following sections on 
 
88 UTAH. 
 
 Sabbath observance in a chapter entitled "Of Crimes and 
 Offences against good morals." 
 
 "4514. Every person who, on Sunday, gets up, exhibits, opens, or 
 maintains, or aids in getting up, exhibiting, opening, or maintaining 
 any bull, bear, cock, or prize fight, horse race, circus, gambling house, 
 or saloon, or any barbarous and noisy amusement, or who keeps, con- 
 ducts, or exhibits any theater, melodeon, dance, cellar, or other place 
 of musical, theatrical, or operatic performances, spectacle, or represen- 
 tation where any wines, liquors, or intoxicating drinks are bought, 
 sold, used, drank, or given away, or who purchases any ticket of ad- 
 mission, or directly or indirectly pays any admission fee to or for the 
 purpose of witnessing or attending any such place, amusement, spec- 
 tacle, performance, or representation, is guilty of a misdemeanor, 
 
 "4515. Every person who keeps open on Sunday any store, work- 
 shop, bar, saloon, banking house, or other place of business, for the 
 purpose of transacting business therein, is punishable by fine not less 
 than five nor more than one hundred dollars. 
 
 "4516. The provisions of the preceding section do not apply to 
 persons who, on Sunday, keep open hotels, boarding houses, baths, 
 restaurants, taverns, livery stables, or retail drug stores for the legiti- 
 mate business of each, or such manufacturing establishments as are 
 usualy kept in continued operation. 
 
 "4519. Every person who performs any unnecessary labor, or does 
 any unnecessary business on Sunday, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and 
 shall be fined in any sum not exceeding twenty-five dollars. 
 
 The constitutionality of the Sabbath law of Utah was 
 affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1902 in State v. Sopher. The 
 Court declared that "General laws prohibiting the transaction of 
 business on the first day of the week are so uniformly upheld by 
 the Courts as a legitimate exercise of the police power of the 
 State that it is unnecessary to cite or discuss authority in support 
 thereof. It is only upon special statutes, or special exceptions 
 to general so-called Sunday laws, that the constitutionality of 
 sucii enactment is seriously called in question." 
 
 In this case Sopher was charged with keeping open his bar- 
 ber shop on the Lord's day, and the plea set up was that the law 
 prohibiting the keeping open of a barber shop is unconstitutional. 
 
 While in a few States such special laws are held unconstitu- 
 tional tl.iey are generally sustained, and the Court sustained the 
 Utah law. (25 Utah. 318). 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 LEGISLATION WEAKENED BY NUMEROUS EXCEP- 
 TIONS. 
 
 In this chapter will be considered those States whose Sab- 
 bath laws, after making general prohibitions of labor, business- 
 and pleasure seeking on the first day of the week, take away 
 much of the efficiency of the prohibitory clauses by the introduc- 
 tion of needless exceptions. 
 
 ALABAMA. (1896.) 
 
 The sections of the law of this State relating to the Sabbath' 
 are the following: 
 
 "5542. Any person, who compels his child, apprentice, or servant 
 to perform any labor on Sunday, except the customary domestic duties 
 of daily necessity or comfort, or works of charity; or who engages 
 In shooting, hunting, gaming, card-playing or racing on that day, must, 
 for the first offense, be fined not less than ten, nor more than twenty 
 dollars, and, for the second, or any subsequent offense, must be fined 
 not less than twenty, nor more than one hundred dollars, and may also 
 be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the 
 county, for not more than three months; but the provisions of this sec- 
 tion do not apply to the running of railroads, stages, or steamboats, 
 or other vessels navigating the waters of this State, or any manufac- 
 turing establishment which requires to be kept in continual operation. 
 
 "5543. Any person, who opens, or causes to be opened, for the 
 purpose of selling or trading, any public market house or place on Sun- 
 day, or opens, or causes to be opened any stall or shop therein, or 
 connected therewith, or brings anything for sale or barter to such 
 market or place, or offers the same for sale therein on that day, or 
 buys or sells therein on that day (including live stock or cattle), must^ 
 on conviction, be punished as prescribed in the preceding section^ 
 
90 ALABAMA. 
 
 Any place where people assemble for the purchase and sale of goods 
 ■wares and merchandise, provisions, cattle, or other articles, is a mar- 
 ket house or place within the meaning of this section." (Vol. 2, p. 84.) 
 
 "1749. All contracts made on Sunday, unless for the advancement 
 of religion, or in the execution, or for the performance of some work 
 of charity, or in the case of necessity, are void." 
 
 Section 1759 declares Sunday to be a legal holiday and paper fall- 
 ing due on that day is to be held as due on the next succeeding busi- 
 ness day. 
 
 Section 2943 declares that "attachments may issue and be exe- 
 cuted on Sunday, if the plaintiff, his agent, or attorney, in addition to 
 the oath prescribed for the issue of such process, make affidavit that 
 the defendant is absconding, or is about to abscond, or is about to re- 
 move his property from the State, and give bond required in this arti- 
 cle." 
 
 The constittitionality of a municipal ordinance of Mobile, 
 entitled, "An act to reg-ulate the observance of the Christian Sab- 
 bath day," was upheld in the case of Frolickstein v. Mayor of 
 Mobile, in 1867. Frolickstein was a Jew and kept a store. He 
 sold goods on the first day of the week for which he was indicted. 
 In his defense the act charged was admitted, but the plea was ad- 
 vanced, that being a Jew, and believing in the Seventh day of 
 the week as the Sabbath, he also believed that by the law of 
 Moses he was required to work the other six. A law forbidding 
 this, it was contended, violates that provision of the State Con- 
 stitution which declares that no person shall, "upon any pretense, 
 whatever, be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his religiotts senti- 
 ments or persuasions." 
 
 "The law does not hurt, molest, or restrain the appellant, in the 
 entertainment or expression of what he regards as a religious senti- 
 ment or persuasion. It simply prohibits the performance of an act, 
 w^hich he supposes to be required by a religious duty. It cannot be 
 that the Constitution designed to exclude from the prohibitory power 
 Df legislation every act, which a sentiment or persuasion, regarded by 
 any one as of a religious character, may dictate. Such a doctrine 
 would lead to the constrained toleration of crime, equally abhorrent to 
 
 the Jew and the Christian It would be subversive of good gov- 
 
 srnment to subordinate the power of restraining acts prejudicial to 
 the public welfare, and productive of social injury, to the convictions 
 of each individual as to the acts which religious sentiment may de- 
 mand The legally constrained abstinence from certain worldly 
 
 ■employments on the first day of the week cannot be justified upon the 
 ground, that such abstinence is enjoined by the Christian religion. 
 "The legislature is under constitutional restrictions against compelling 
 
ALABAMA. 91 
 
 the observance of a Christian, or Jewish, or any other religious insti- 
 tution because it is such. But the legislature is not prohibited from 
 making municipal regulations, because they have the sanction also of 
 a religious society. The legislation on the subject of abstaining from 
 worldly employments on the first day of the week is referred to the 
 police power of the legislature. It has its sanction in the teaching of 
 experience, that the general welfare and the good of society require a 
 suspension of labor and business for one day in seven, and that that 
 day should be one of uniform observance. The exercise of the power 
 to enforce this theory of public good would not infringe the constitu- 
 tion, whether the designated day should be the Christian or the Jew- 
 ish Sabbath." 
 
 As to the contention that the divine law as understood by the Jew, 
 required him to work six days in the week, the Court said: 'However 
 much we may respect the conscientiousness and religious devotion of 
 the appellant, we cannot regard the rule which he prescrit)es for him- 
 self, otherwise than as an industrial regulation, which is not required 
 by a sentiment in fact religious, although so conscientiously regarded 
 by him." (40 Ala. 725.) 
 
 In 1842, in the case of Cotton v. Huey & Company, the Su- 
 preme Court declared with reference to the law as follows : 
 
 "The obvious design of the Legislature was to prevent the spread 
 of vice and immorality by the desecration of the first day of the week 
 to common secular purposes, unless justified by the necessity of the 
 case. In addition we are clearly of opinion that the service of an at- 
 tachment is within the letter of the prohibition." (4 Ala. 56.) 
 
 The following year in the case of O'Donnell et al v. Sweeney this 
 Court said: "It is evidently to promote morality and advance the in- 
 terests of religion by prcihibiting all persons from engaging in their 
 common and ordinary avocations of business, or employment, on Sun- 
 day, unless impelled by necessity, or engaged in acts of charity." 
 <5 Ala., 467). 
 
 In 1S50, in the case of Hooper v. Edwards, involving- the case 
 of a debtor leaving the State on the Sabbath to avoid paying- his 
 debts, the court held that a settlement made with him by the 
 creditor, who followed and overtook him. is valid though made 
 on the Sabbath. The Court said: 
 
 •'This act was passed to prevent vice and immorality, and while 
 we must give it such construction as will carry out the intention 
 of the Legislature in its enactment, and prevent the desecration of the 
 first day of the week to common secular business, we must not on the 
 other hand so construe it, as to make it a shield and protection to 
 those, who, under cover of it, would remove their property out of the 
 State, or place it beyond the reach of their creditors." (IS Ala. 280.) 
 
 In 1897 it was declared by this Court that "Since the law recog- 
 
92 KENTUCKY. 
 
 nizes an exception in favor of works of necessity or charity, contracts, 
 expressed or implied, for the performance of works of charity on the 
 first day of the week, or in cases of necessity are not void but enforc- 
 able." (Sloss Iron and Steel Co. v. Harvey. 116 Ala. 656.) 
 
 In the same year it was decided that "any selling on Sunday ex- 
 cept for the advancement of religion, or in the execution or for the 
 performance of some work of charity, or in case of necessity, is, under 
 the statute, void. A sale with closed doors would be as invalid as a 
 sale with open doors." (Wadsworth v. Dunnan, 117 Ala. 661.) A bond 
 signed by the makers on Sabbath but not delivered till a week-day is 
 valid. (117 Ala. 575.) 
 
 A member of a Barbers' Association caused the arrest of other 
 members for violating the Sabbath law. The association resolved to 
 expel him on the ground that he was guilty of conduct tending to the 
 Injury of his fellows. He took the matter into court and the Supreme 
 Court declared that he could not be expelled in this ground. (Man- 
 ning V. Klein, 1 K. & A. 210.) 
 
 Were it not for the exceptions attached to Section 5542 this 
 would be an admirable law. The opinions of the Supreme Court 
 give the statute strong support. 
 
 KENTUCKY. (1903.) 
 
 The following Sections of the law of Kentucky relate to the 
 Sabbath : 
 
 "1303. Any person who shall, on Sunday, keep open a bar-room or 
 other place for the sale of spirituous, vinous or malt liquors, or who 
 shall sell or otherwise dispose of such liquors, or any of them, on Sun- 
 day, shall be fined not less than ten nor more than fifty dollars for each 
 offense, (p. 578.) 
 
 "1321. No work or business shall be done on the Sabbath day, 
 except the ordinary household offices, or other work of necessity or 
 charity, or work required in the maintenance or operation of a ferry, 
 skiff or steamboat, or steam or street railroads. If any person on the 
 Sabbath day shall himself be found at his own, or any other trade or 
 calling, or shall employ his apprentices, or other person, in labor or 
 other business, whether the same be for profit or amusement, unless 
 such as is permitted above, he shall be fined not less than two nor 
 more than fifty dollars for each offense. Every person or apprentice 
 so employed shall be deemed a separate offense. Persons who are 
 members of a religious society, who observe as a Sabbath any other 
 day in the week than Simday, shall not be liable to the penalty pre- 
 scribed in this section, if they observe as a Sabbath one day in each 
 seven, as herein provided. 
 
 "1322. That any person who engages in the business of barbering 
 on Sunday shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon, con- 
 
KENTUCKY. 93 
 
 viction thereof, shall be fined not more than five dollars, and upon a 
 second conviction for a like offense, shall be fined not less than ten 
 dollars and not more than twenty-five dollars, or imprisoned in the 
 county jail for a period of not less than five days nor more than 
 ten days, or be both fined and imprisoned, at the discretion of the 
 court. 
 
 "1323. If any person shall hunt game, with a gun or dogs, on the 
 Sabbath, he shall be fined not less than five nor more than fifty dol- 
 lars for each offense, (pp. 582, 583.) 
 
 "1369. No spirituous liquors shall be kept or sold in any room 
 ■where a billiard, pigeon-hole or pool table is kept; nor shall any game 
 be played on such table on Sunday." (p. 591.) The penalty is sixty 
 dollars fine and forfeiture of license. 
 
 "4567. A writ of habeas corpus, or process on a charge of treason, 
 felony or, for a riot or breach of the peace, or upon an escape out of 
 custody, may be executed on Sunday, (p. 1598.) 
 
 Prosecutions under this law must be begun within six months after 
 the offense is committed. 
 
 The constrtiction of the act forbidding labor on the Sab- 
 bath was passed upon by the Court of Appeals in 1851 in the 
 •case of Ray, etc., v. Catlett and Buck. Petition was brought by 
 the latter upon a note executed to them by George W. and Wil- 
 liam W. Ray. The defendants plead that the note was executed 
 on the Sabbath for drugs purchased on that day. Judge Mar- 
 shall in delivering the opinion of the Court said : 
 
 "One object of the statute was to secure the observance of that 
 decorum and quiet which, in a Christian countrj^ is due to the Chris- 
 tian Sabbath; another object was to secure to all laborers, and especi- 
 ally to apprentices and slaves, which include all classes of persons w^ho 
 are in the employment of others, one day of rest in seven." "We are 
 not prepared to decide that the mere execution and delivery of a note, 
 or Its mere acceptance, on Sunday, is laboring in any trade or calling, 
 unless it be a part of some other transaction done also on Sunday, 
 which may be regarded as labor in some trade or calling. And if the 
 mere execution and delivery of a note could be deemed such labor, we 
 are satisfied that its mere acceptance could not, and the person ac- 
 cepting it would not be involved in any consequence of a breach of the 
 law by the other, unless he knew that the note had been made, as well 
 as delivered on Sunday." "Our statutes protect religious worship from 
 disturbance, but can neither compel attendance upon it, or contribute 
 toward its maintenance nor any devotional duties or observances. 
 And we are satisfied that the particular clause now in question had 
 no other object in view but that of enforcing decorum and quiet on a 
 day regarded as holy by a large portion of the community, and of se- 
 •<5uring rest from labor on that day (unless where some other day is 
 
g^ KENTUCKY. 
 
 kept as a i-eligious observance), to all persons employed to labor for 
 others. It is quite probable that the Legislature did not think of any 
 efEect which this provision might have upon isolated transactions of 
 a private nature, or indeed on other transactions in the form of con- 
 tracts." (12 B. M. 532, 1851.) 
 
 A contract made on the Sabbath day having for its consideration 
 the performance of work on that day, which is prohibited by law, can- 
 not be enforced. (Slade v. Arnold 14 Ky. 287, 1853.) 
 
 In the case of Murphy v. Thompson the Court of Appeals said, 
 "Our statute does not merely prohibit a person from doing work on the 
 Sabbath day, in his own trade or calling, but the prohibition embraces 
 work or business in his own or any other trade or calling, and applies 
 to every description of secular labor or business, except the ordinary 
 household offices of daily necessity, or other work of necessity or 
 charity. 
 
 "Exchanging, or as it is usually termed, swapping horses, is as 
 much a trade or business as selling a horse, or any other commodity 
 would be. It is a violation of the statute when done on the Sabbath 
 day. ... It is a well established doctrine of law, that where a statute 
 has in view the protection of the public morals, a contract arising out 
 of any particular act, infringing its provisions, cannot be supported,, 
 although the statute merely inflict a penalty for the doing of the act, 
 and do not expressly declare the contract unlawful. In such a statute, 
 a penalty implies a prohibition." (14 Ky. 419, 1854.) 
 
 The following from an opinion by the Court of Appeals is 
 of value in showing that the Sabbath is not to be classed with 
 holidays : 
 
 "The Christian Sabbath is wisely recognized as 'a day of rest,' to 
 be devoted to religious contemplation and observance, free from secu- 
 lar disturbance." "In both the popular and the legal sense, a holiday 
 is a day dedicated by usage, not to rest and religious devotion, but to 
 amusement and festivity, marked by the general liberty and hilarity 
 of all classes of the people." "In this country certain memorable days 
 — as, for example, the 4th of July and Christmas — have been long and 
 emphatically observed as holidays, but Sunday never." (Moore v. 
 Hagan, Duvall's Reports, 437, 1866.) 
 
 A bail bond executed on Sabbath for the appearance of a person- 
 accused of crime, is binding on the sureties. (5 Ky. 309, 1869.) 
 
 A note signed on Sabbath but not delivered on that day is valid, 
 the person to whom it is payable not being a party to the illegal act, 
 (Dahoney, etc., v. Dahoney, 7 Bush. 217, 1879.) 
 
 The publication of ordinances in no other than Sunday papers is 
 not such a publication as the law approves. This matter came before 
 the Court of Appeals in the case of Ormsby v. City of Louisville. The 
 Court said: "A publication of the levy ordinances on Sunday, and 
 on no other day, before seeking to enforce them is not such a publica- 
 
KENTUCKY. 95 
 
 tion as the charter requires, or the law of this State approves. It is 
 not a judicial day, nor is it a day upon which any work, labor, or call- 
 ing can be legally pursued, unless of necessity or charity." "The pub- 
 lication is a violation of law, and no citizen is bound by any law known 
 to us to read secular newspapers on Sunday to entitle himself to the 
 benefits which may flow from publications contained in them. If he 
 chooses he may refuse to read them on Sunday altogether, and none of 
 his legal rights will be thereby forfeited." (79 Ky. 197, 1880.) 
 
 In The Commonwealth v. The Louisville and Nashville 
 Railroad Company the Court of Appeals declared as follows with 
 respect to the running of trains on the Lord's day : 
 
 "The law regards that as necessary which the common sense of 
 the country in its ordinary mode of doing business regards as nec- 
 essary: Railroad companies, as carriers of passengers, furnish at this 
 day almost every accommodation to the traveller that is to be found 
 in the hotels of the country. His meals, as well as sleeping apart- 
 ments are often furnished him, and to require the train, when on its 
 line of travel, to delay its journey, that the passengers may go to a 
 hotel to enjoy the Sabbath, where the same labor is required to be 
 performed for him as upon the train, or to require him to remain on 
 the train and there live as he would at the hotel, would certainly not 
 carry out the purpose of the law, and besides, the necessity for reach- 
 ing his home or place of destination must necessarily exist in so many 
 instances as to make it indispensable that the train should pursue its 
 way. So of the trains transporting goods, merchandise, live stock, 
 fruits, vegetables, etc., that, by reason of delay, would work great in- 
 jury to parties interested. A private carriage, in which is the owner 
 or his family, driven by one who is employed by the month or the 
 year to the church in which the owner worships, or to the home of his 
 friend or relative, on the Sabbath, is not in violation of the statute. 
 So in reference to the use of street railroads in towns and cities on 
 the Sabbath day. Those who have not the means of providing their 
 own horses or carriages travel upon street cars to their place of wor- 
 ship, or to visit their friends and acquaintances; and such is the ap- 
 parent necessity in all such cases, that no inquiry will be directed as 
 to the business or destination of the traveler, whether in the one 
 case or the other, nor will an inquiry be directed as to the character 
 of the freight being transported; nor will the person desiring to hire 
 the horse from the livery stable be compelled to disclose the purpose 
 in view in order to protect the keeper from the penalty of the law. 
 Such employments are necessary and not within the inhibition of the 
 statute." (80 Ky. 291, 1882.) 
 
 In the case of Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Common- 
 wealth, the Court held that "the company would be excusable for re- 
 pairing any part of its track on the Sabbath day that was suddenly 
 
«96 LOUISIANA. 
 
 rendered unsafe where delay might endanger the safety of passengers 
 or property in its charge, and where, if it failed to make the repairs 
 on that day because of the fact' that it was the Sabbath day, and in- 
 jury were to befall the passengers or property in its charge in conse- 
 •quence of such failure, the company would be responsible. But this 
 rule does not apply to the making of the ordinary repairs of its track 
 that, having in view the safety of the passengers and property In 
 charge, can be done on any other day than Sunday with equal safety." 
 (92 Ky. 114, 1891.) 
 
 A person injured in crossing a railroad track while returning from 
 work on Sabbath is not deprived of redress, as the same injury would 
 have happened on any other day in like circumstances. (91 Ky. 434, 
 1891.) 
 
 The exceptions mentioned in Section 132 1 have a weakening 
 effect and open the way for gross desecrations of the Lord's day. 
 Otherwise the law is commendable. The opinions of the Su- 
 preme Court, especially those declaring the purpose of the laws, 
 the one distinguishing the Sabbath from mere holidays and the 
 one declaring legal notices in Sunday papers to be prohibited, are 
 valuable. 
 
 LOUISIANA. ( 1 904. ) 
 
 "Sunday Law" is the title of the act of this State relating 
 to the first day of the week. It is as follows : 
 
 "1. That from and after the 31st day of December, A. D., 1886, 
 all stores, shops, saloons, and all places of public business, which are 
 or may be licensed under the law of the State of Louisiana, or under 
 any parochial ior municipal law or ordinance, and all plantation stores, 
 are hereby required to be closed at twelve o'clock on Saturday nights, 
 ^nd to remain closed continuously for twenty-four (24) hours, during 
 which period of time it shall not be lawful for the proprietors thereof 
 to give, trade, barter, exchange or sell any of the stock or any article 
 of merchandise kept in any such establishment. 
 
 "2. That whoever shall violate the provisions of this act, for each 
 offense, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on trial and 
 conviction, shall pay a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars, nor 
 more than two hundred and fifty dollars, or be imprisoned for not less 
 than ten days nor more than thirty days, or both, at the discretion of 
 the Court; provision of this act shall not apply to newsdealers, keepers 
 of soda fountains, places of resort for recreation and health, watering 
 places, and public pai'ks, nor prevent the sale of ice. 
 
 "3. That the provisions of this act shall not apply to newspaper 
 offices, printing offices, book stores, drug stores, apothecary shops, un- 
 •dertaker shops, public and private markets, bakeries, dairies, livery 
 
LOUISINA. 97 
 
 ■stables, railroads, whether steam or horse, hotels, boarding houses, 
 steamboats and other vessels, ware-houses for receiving and forward- 
 ing freights, restaurants, telegraph offices and theaters, or any place 
 of amusement, providing no intoxicating liquors are sold in the prem- 
 ises; provided, that stores may be opened for the purpose of selling 
 ■anything necessary in sickness and for burial purposes; provided, that 
 nothing in this act shall be construed so as to allow hotels or board- 
 ing houses to sell or dispose of alcoholic liquors, except wine for table 
 use on Sundays; and provided, further, that no alcoholic, vinous or 
 malt liquors shall be given, traded or bartered or sold or delivered 
 in any public place on said day, except where actually administered or 
 prescribed by a practicing physician in the discharge of his profes- 
 sional duties in cases of sickness; in such case the physicians ad- 
 ministering intoxicating liquors may charge therefor. 
 
 "4. That all laws or parts of laws contrary to or inconsistent 
 with the provisions hereof, be and the same are hereby repealed." 
 <Vol. 1, pp. 399, 400.) 
 
 The City of Shreveport, La., passed an ordinance providing 
 that all business houses in the city should be closed from and 
 after 9 o'clock A. ^I., on Sabbath, the ordinance not to apply 
 to drug stores, hotels, barber shops, restaurants and livery 
 stables. In the case of the City of Shreveport v. Levy, the de- 
 fendant, a Jew, having been convicted in the Recorder's Court, 
 .and fined for selling goods on Sabbath, the Supreme Court said : 
 
 "If the ordinance stopped here, perhaps it might do very well, but 
 it goes on and provides further that it shall not apply to any person 
 or persons doing business in the city who close up their places of 
 business on Saturdays, and keep them closed during the whole day. 
 
 "It is admitted in thQ record that a large proportion of persons 
 engaged in mercantile pursuits in the city of Shreveport are Jews, 
 many of whom observe the Jewish Sabbath. Before the constitution 
 Jews and Gentiles are equal; by the law they must be treated alike, 
 and the ordinance of City Council which gives to one sect a privilege 
 which it denies to another, violates both the Constitution and the law, 
 -and is therefore null and void." (26 La. 671, 1874.) 
 
 The Sabbath Law of Louisiana was enacted in 1886. Its 
 constitutionality was tested in the following year in the case of 
 State ex rel. Walker and Merz v. Judge. The following were 
 the grounds on which its unconstitutionality was charged: It 
 violates Art. 4 of the State Constitution which prohibits the 
 passage of any law "respecting the establishment of religion or 
 prohibiting the free exercise thereof; that it violates the Four- 
 teenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States which 
 iorbids any State to "make or enforce any law which shall 
 
gS LOUIS IN A. 
 
 abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United 
 States, that it violates both State and National Constitution in 
 depriving citizens of life, liberty or property without due process 
 of law, and denies to some the equal protection of the law. None 
 of these objections was sustained. The Court said on the first 
 of these objections : 
 
 "If the object of this law were to compel the observance of Sun- 
 day, as a religious institution, because it is the Christian Sabbath, to 
 be kept holy under the ordinances of the Christian religion, we should 
 not hesitate in declaring it to be violative of the above constitutional 
 provision. It would violate equally the religious liberty of the Chris- 
 tian, the Jew and the infidel, none of whom can be compelled by law 
 to comply with any merely religious observance, whether it accords 
 
 with his faith and conscience or not The statute is to be judged 
 
 precisely as if it had selected for the day of rest any day of the week 
 other than Sunday; and its validity is not to be questioned because, 
 in the exercise of a wise discretion, it has chosen that day which the 
 majority of the inhabitants of the State, under the sanction of their 
 religious faith, already voluntarily observe as a day of rest." 
 
 As to the second objection the Court held that the privileges and 
 immunities referred to were those belonging to citizens as citizens of 
 the United States, not as citizens of one of the States. 
 
 As to the third the Court replied by upholding the law as a police 
 regulation, quoting with approbation the following paragraph from 
 Tiedeman on Police power, page 181. 
 
 "Whatever the metaphysicians or theologians may tell us about 
 free will, in the complex society of the present age, the individual is 
 a free agent to but a limited degree. H& is in the main but the crea- 
 ture of circumstances. Those who most need the cessation from labor 
 are unable to take the necessary rest, if the demands of the tiade 
 should require their uninterrupted attention to business. And if the 
 law did not interfere, the feverish, intense desire to acquire wealth, 
 inciting a relentless rivalry and competition, would ultimately prevent, 
 not only the wage-earners, but likewise the capitalists and employers 
 themselves, from yielding to the warning of nature, and obeying the 
 instincts of self-preservation by resting periodically from, labor. Re- 
 move the prohibition of law and this wholesome sanitary regulation 
 would cease to be observed." 
 
 As to the charge that the act denies to some the equal protection 
 of the law, the Court said: "The law leaves the Jew at entire liberty 
 to observe his own religious Sabbath, but it is not bound to take cog- 
 nizance of individual religious beliefs as a ground of exemption from 
 the operation of general laws. 
 
 "Uniformity in the day fixed is essential to the successful execu- 
 tion of the- law, which would be rendered much more difficult if a dif- 
 ferent day of rest were assigned to various classes, besides the in- 
 
LOUISINA. 99 
 
 convenience to the business interests of the community which would 
 result from the partial suspension of trade on several different days." 
 (39 La. 132.) 
 
 In State v. Fernandez, it was held that "the Sunday Law operates 
 uniformly throughout the State, and cannot be construed so as to au- 
 thorize to be done, in one place, on Sundays, that which it forbids to 
 be done, on that day, in all other places." The law of Louisiana ex- 
 empts public markets from the prohibition of the law. In this case 
 Fernandez kept a grocery in the market. The Court held that as the 
 grocery business is prohibited elsewhere it cannot be carried on in 
 a public market. (39 La. 538, 1887.) 
 
 A question as to the interpretation of the law came before the 
 Supreme Court in 189G, in State v. Gelpi. Mr. Gelpi represented a 
 social club, incorporated, '"established for the improvement of the mem- 
 bers, and for social enjoyment and pleasure." Within the precincts of 
 the club there is a place where liquors are distributed to members 
 only. The treasurer testified that the revenues of the club are all de- 
 rived from the dues paid by the members and from the sale of liquors 
 to them. He also testified that these revenues are applied to the pay- 
 ment of the expenses of the club, and that the sales are not made with 
 a view to profit. The club rooms were open and liquor sold on the 
 Sabbath. But the plea was made that since the club was private, no 
 liquor being sold to any but members, and since no profit was made 
 from the sales, the club was not subject to the prohibitions of the 
 Sabbath law. 
 
 The Court had no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the 
 club was private, but held that the bar of such a club is bound by the 
 same law as applies to other bars, and is therefore required to close 
 on the Sabbath. (48 La. 520.) 
 
 The list of exceptions entimerated in the law of Louisiana is 
 so formidable and some of the things excepted are so objection- 
 able that seriotis doubts might be entertained as to the law's utili- 
 ty. It might be better for the people to engage in some of the 
 things prohibited than to spend the day in the enjoyment of the 
 things excepted. 
 
 Although the law is sustained as constitutional the court 
 surely errs in stating that it is to be judged as if any other day 
 of the week had been selected as the day of rest. This statement 
 overlooks entirely the fact that the Sabbath occuring on the fir.st 
 day of the week is a civil institution, and that the observance of 
 it on that day is part of the common law of the land. With all 
 its imperfections, however this law must have some good points 
 as is evident from some of the cases that have arisen. 
 
loo MASS A CH USE ITS. 
 
 MASSACHUSETTS. (1902.) 
 
 "Of the Observance of the Lord's Day" is the title of that 
 portion of the statutes of Massachusettes relating to the Sabbath 
 found in Chapter 98. It is as follows : 
 
 "1. Whoever, on the Lord's day, is present at a game, sport, play- 
 er public diversion, except a concert of sacred music, or an entertain- 
 ment given by a religious or charitable society the proceeds of which, 
 if any, are to be devoted exclusively to a charitable or religious pur- 
 pose upon the Lord's day, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five 
 dollars for each offense. 
 
 "2. Whoever, on the Lord's day, keeps open his shop, warehouse or 
 workhouse, or does any manner of labor, business or work, except 
 works of necessity and charity, or takes part in any sport, game, play, 
 or public diversion, except a concert of sacred music, or an entertain- 
 ment given by a religious or charitable society, the proceeds of which, 
 if any, are to be devoted exclusively to a charitable or religious pur- 
 pose, shall be punished by a fine of not more than fifty dollars for 
 each offense; and the proprietor, manager or person in charge of such 
 game, sport, play or public diversion, except as aforesaid, shall be pun- 
 ished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dol- 
 lars for each offense. 
 
 "3. The provisions of the preceding section shall not be held to 
 prohibit the manufacture and distribution of steam, gas or electricity, 
 for illuminating purposes, heat or motive power, nor the distribution 
 of water for fire or domestic purposes, nor the use of the telegraph or 
 the telephone, nor the retail sale of drugs and medicines, nor articles 
 ordered by the prescription of a physician or mechanical appliances 
 used by physicians or surgeons, nor the retail sale of tobacco in any 
 of its forms by licensed inn-holders, common victuallers, druggists and 
 newsdealers whose stores are open for the sale of newspapers every 
 day in the week, nor the letting of horses and carriages or of yachts 
 and boats, nor the running of steam ferry boats on established routes, 
 nor the running of street railway cars, nor the preparation, printing 
 and publication of newspapers, nor the sale and delivery of newspapers, 
 nor the wholesale or retail sale and delivery of milk, nor the transpor- 
 tation of milk, nor the making of butter and cheese nor the keeping 
 open of public bath houses, nor the making or selling by bakers or 
 their employes, before ten o'clock in the morning and between the 
 hours of four o'clock and half-past six o'clock in the evening, of bread 
 or other food usually dealt in by them, nor the carrying on of the busi- 
 ness of bootblacks before eleven o'clock in the forenoon. 
 
 "4. Whoever conscientiously believes that the seventh day of the 
 week ought to be observed as the Sabbath, and actually refrains from 
 secular business and labor on that day, shall not be liable to the pen- 
 
MASSAC in SETTS. loi 
 
 alties of section two for performing secular business and labor on the 
 Lord's day if he disturbs no other person. 
 
 "5. The provisions of the preceding sections shall not be held to 
 prohibit the giving, being present at, or taking part in, on the Lord's 
 day, a concert of sacred music or an entertainment given by a religious 
 or charitable society the proceeds of which, if any, are to be devoted 
 exclusively to a charitable or religious purpose, or a free open air con- 
 cert given by a city or town, or by license of the Mayor and Aldermen 
 of a city or the selectmen of a town, upon a common, public park, street 
 or square. 
 
 "6. Whoever, keeping a house, shop, cellar or place of public en- 
 tertainment or refreshment, entertains therein on the Lord's day any 
 persons other than travellers, strangers, or lodgers, or suffers such per- 
 sons on said day to abide or remain therein, or in the yards, orchards, 
 or fields appertaining to the same, drinking or spending their time 
 idly or at play, or in doing any secular business, shall be punished by a 
 fine of not more than fifty dollars for each person so entertained or suf- 
 fered so to abide or remain; and upon subsequent conviction, by a 
 fine of not more than one hundred dollars; and if convicted three times, 
 he shall thereafter be disqualified to hold a license. 
 
 "7. An innholder or other person who, being licensed to keep a 
 place of public entertainment, entertains or suffers to remain or be in 
 his house, yard or other places appurtenant, any person other than 
 travellers, strangers or lodgers in such house, drinking and spending 
 their time there, on the Lord's day, or on the evening preceding the 
 same, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five dollars for each 
 offense. 
 
 "8. A civil process shall not be served or executed on the Lord's 
 day, and such service if made shall be void, and the person who serves 
 or executes it shall be liable in damages to the person aggrieved in 
 like manner as if he had no such process. 
 
 "9. Whoever, on the Lord's day, behaves rudely or indecently 
 within the walls of any house of public worship shall be punished by 
 a fine of not more than ten dollars. 
 
 "10. Prosecutions for penalties incurred under the preceding pro- 
 visions of this chapter shall be commenced within six months after the 
 offense was committed. 
 
 "11. Sheriffs, constables, and grand jurors shall inquire into and 
 inform of all offenses against the provisions of this chapter, and cause 
 the same to be enforced. 
 
 12. Whoever, on the Lord's day, discharges any firearm for sport 
 or In the pursuit of game, or attempts to take or catch any fish by 
 using a hook, line, net, spear or other implement, shall be punished 
 by a fine not more than ten dollars. Prosecutions under the provis- 
 ions of this section shall be commenced within thirty days after the 
 time the offense was committed. 
 
 "13. Any innholder, common victualler or person keeping or suf- 
 
I02 MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 fering to be kept in any place occupied by him implements such as are 
 used in gaming, in order that, the same may for hire, gain or reward 
 be used for purposes of amusement, who, on the Lord's day, uses or suf- 
 fers to be used any such implements upon any part of his premises, 
 shall for the first offense be punished by a fine of not more than one 
 hundred dollars or imprisonment for not more than three months; and 
 for each subsequent offense by imprisonment for not more than one 
 year; and in either case shall further recognize, with sufficient securi- 
 ties, ^in a reasonable sum for his good behaviour, and especially that 
 he will not be guilty of any offense against the provisions of this Sec- 
 tion for three months after the date of his recognizance. 
 
 "14. The board of railroad commissioners may authorize the run- 
 ning, on the Lord's day, of such steamboat lines and such trains upon 
 any railroad, as, in the opinion of the board, the public necessity and 
 convenience requires, having regard to the due observance of the day. 
 
 "15. The board of railroad commissioners may, if in their opinion 
 the public necessity, convenience, health or welfare so requires, author- 
 ize the running of steamboats on the Lord's day for the entire year or 
 any part thereof, upon such conditions as they deem judicious to pi-e- 
 vent disorderly conduct or the disturbance of public worship, and may 
 at any time revoke such authority. 
 
 "16. The Lord's day shall include the time from midnight to mid- 
 night. 
 
 "17. The provisions of this chapter shall not constitute a defense 
 to an action for a tort or injury suffered by a person on the Lord's 
 day. (Vol. 1, pp. 830, 832). 
 
 In Pearce v. Atwood the Supreme Court of Massachussetts upheld 
 the law in the following words: 
 
 "It is true, that from the fourth command in the Decalogue it may 
 be inferred, that one day in seven was, according to the divine will, 
 to be set apart as a day of rest from labor. But none will contend, 
 that the day therein sanctified is the day which Christians are bound 
 to keep as holy time; or that any of the rigid laws of Moses are now 
 in force. It is enough to observe, that, by the universal consent of 
 Christians, another holy day has been substituted, and that works ot 
 necessity and charity are not profanations of the Christian Sabbath."* 
 (13 Mass. 324). 
 
 In 1877 the constitutionality of the law was upheld in Com- 
 monwealth V. HaL. The charge against Has was that he kept 
 his shop open on the first day of the week. His plea was that 
 he was a Jew and kept the seventh day, and was therefore en- 
 
 *Whlle it is the opinion of many that the Fourth Commandment specifically desig- 
 nates the seventh day of the week as holy time, and while a tew believe that that dar 
 shouH still be observed, the true view is that this commandment requires the observance 
 of the seventh day after six of labor, the day to be observed being elsewhere designated* 
 This topic is more fully considered in chapter IV, p. 2'2?. 
 
MASS A CH USETTS. 103 
 
 titled to exemption from the law's prohibition. The Court said : 
 "Keeping open a shop is in itself a solicitation to do business, and 
 thus an invitation to commit acts which the Legislature has treated 
 as violations of the day. While those, who, for conscientious reasons, 
 observe the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, may do business 
 or perform labor which does not interfere with others, tliey are not 
 entitled by keeping open their shops to invite the violation of the pro- 
 visions of the act, even if the ordinary business is shopkeeping. It is, 
 however, contended that, if the true construction of the statute i§ that 
 it forbids to one, who conscientiously observes the seventh day of the 
 week as the Sabbath, the privilege of keeping open his shop on the first 
 day of the week, it is unconstitutional and in derogation of the 
 Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth, which 
 provides that 'no subordination of any one sect or denomination to 
 another shall ever be established by law.' 
 
 "This act has been so frequently recognized in both civil and crim- 
 inal cases, and its various provisions have been so often the subject 
 of judicial decisions, that its constitutionality can hardly be considered 
 an open question. It is essentially a civil regulation, providing for a 
 fixed period of rest in the business, the ordinary avocations and the 
 amusements of the community. If there is to be such a cessation from 
 labor and amusement, some one day must be selected for the purpose; 
 and even if the day thus selected is chosen because a great 
 majority of the people celebrate it as a day of peculiar sanc- 
 tity, the legislative authority to provide for its observance is 
 derived from its general authority to regulate the business of the 
 ■community and to provide for its moral and physical welfare. 
 The act imposes upon no one any religious ceremony or attendance 
 upon any form of worship, and any one, who deems another day more 
 suitable for rest or worship, may devote that day to the religious ob- 
 servance which he deems appropriate. That one who conscientiously 
 observes the seventh day of the week may also be compelled to abstain 
 from business of the kind expressly forbidden on the first day, is not 
 occasioned by any subordination of his religion, but because as a mem- 
 'ber of the community he must submit to the rules which are made by 
 lawful authority to regulate and govern the business of that commun- 
 ity." (122 Mass. 40). 
 
 What are works of necessity is a question to which much 
 attention has been given. 
 
 A decision of considerable importance was rendered by the 
 Supreme Judicial Court of INIassachusetts in 1809, in the case of 
 Commonwealth v. Knox (6 Mass. 76). A contract had been 
 ir.ade by the postmaster-general with Josiali Paine for carrying 
 the Mail between Portland and Boston, on each day of the week. 
 James Knox, the servant of Paine, was arrested for unlawfully 
 
I04 3IASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 travelling, with a stage carri^age for passengers, through the 
 town of Newbnryport, on the Lord's day. The case reached the 
 Supreme Court, and that court in defining works of necessity 
 
 said : 
 
 "By necessity cannot be understood physical necessity; for a case 
 in which any man is physically obliged to travel, can hardly be im- 
 agined. But a moral fitness or propriety of travelling, under the cir- 
 cumstances of any particular case, may be deemed necessity within this 
 section; and a fortiori, when the travelling is necessary to execute a. 
 lawful contract, it cannot be considered as unnecessary travelling, 
 against the prohibition of the statute. 
 
 "It may be said that the postmaster-general is not obliged by law 
 to contract with any person to carry the mail on the Lord's day. This 
 is true; but he has authority to make such contract, and there may be- 
 times, as in case of war or insurrection, when this authority should be 
 exercised. And at all times it is within his discretion whether to ex- 
 ercise it or not." 
 
 In 1849, ^^ Flagg V. the inhabitants of Millbury, it was held, 
 that a defect in the public highway which may endanger the limbs- 
 and lives of travellers, if discovered on the Lord's day, should be 
 immediately repaired. (4 Cush. 243). 
 
 An opinion of more than usual value, given in a case in 
 which the law was violated by parties collecting sea weed on the 
 Sabbath, was handed down in 1867. In defining works of ne- 
 cessity and charity the Court said : 
 
 "It is no suflScient excuse for work on the Lord's day, that it is 
 more convenient or profitable if then done than it would be to defer or 
 omit it. If a vessel had been wrecked upon the beach it would, have 
 been lawful to work on Sunday for the preservation of property which 
 might be lost by delay. But if the fish in the bay or the birds on the 
 shore happened to be uncommonly abundant on the Lord's day, it 
 is equally clear that it would furnish no excuse for fishing or shooting: 
 on that day." "The deposit of seaweed upon the shore by the waves, 
 if not constant, is frequent. The collecting of it on the beach as it is; 
 found there from time to time is one of the ordinary branches of agri- 
 cultural labor. We therefore think that the work of the defendants 
 (collecting seaweed) was not a work of necessity." (97 Mass. 410). 
 
 Many cases have come before the Courts of Massachusetts 
 requiring an interpretation of the law as it relates to various busi- 
 ness transactions. The following will show the construction- 
 placed upon the law by the Supreme Court : 
 
 In Geer v. Putnam it was held that "it is no bar to the recovery of 
 judgment on a promissory note that it was made on Sunday." (10' 
 Mass. 311, 1813). 
 
MASSACHUSETTS. 105 
 
 Later opinions do not seem to be in harmony with this. In Clapp 
 V. Hale it was held that a payment made on a promissory note on the 
 Sabbath will not take it out of the operation of the statute of limita- 
 tion. (112 Mass. 368, 1873). 
 
 In Pattee v. Putnam it was held that action cannot be maintained 
 on a bond which was executed on the Lord's day neither from necessity 
 nor charity. (13, Met. 284, 1847). 
 
 A guarantee for the fulfillment of a lease executed and delivered on 
 the Lord's day is void. (10 Cush. 257, 1852). 
 
 An action cannot be maintained for a deceit practiced in a horse 
 trade on the Lord's day. (Robson v. French, 12 Met. 24, 1847). 
 
 The principle involved in all such cases is stated as follows: "One 
 who has himself participated in a violation of law cannot be permit- 
 ted to assert in a court of justice any right founded upon or growing out 
 
 of the illegal transaction It is upon this principle that a bond,. 
 
 promissory note or other executory contract, made and delivered upon 
 the Lord's day, is incapable of being enforced, or, as is sometimes said, 
 absolutely void, as between the parties." (Cranson v. Goss, 107 Mass., 
 439, 1871). 
 
 The case of Stevens v. Wood (127 Mass. 123, 1879), illus- 
 trates the method sometimes taken by dishonest people to avoid 
 paying their debts : 
 
 "Wood gave a promissory note to Fletcher. Fletcher, being away 
 from home, and finding that the note would soon be barred by the 
 statute of limitations, sent it to his friend Ball either to collect or have 
 it renewed. Wood gave Ball a new note on Sabbath but dated on a 
 secular day, and Ball in due time delivered it to Fletcher, who signed 
 it over to Stevens. Neither Fletcher nor Stevens knew that the note 
 was drawn on Sabbath. Wood in making and delivering the note on 
 the Lord's day intended to defraud. The Supreme Court held that the 
 transaction between Wood and Ball was illegal, that Fletcher could not 
 maintain an action thereon, nor could Stevens, and that the purpose 
 of Wood was immaterial. 
 
 A contract to furnish music by a band seven days m the week 
 is illegal. (Stewart v. Thayer, 1G8 Mass. 519, 1897). 
 
 Previous to the passage of Section 17 of the ^Massachusetts 
 Sabbath law many suits came before the courts for damages 
 on account of injuries received while travelling on the Lord's 
 day. The question involved was whether or not the travelling 
 was necessary. This section allows damages in any case in which 
 the injury was the result of the carelessness or negligence of the 
 transportation company. Formerly the ]\Iassachusetts Courts 
 uniformly held that unless the travelling was a matter of neces- 
 sity or charity damages could not be recovered. 
 
 One of the most important of such cases was that of Bucher 
 
io6 MASSACHUSETTS. 
 
 V. Fitchburg Railroad Company, or Bucher v. Cheshire Railroad 
 Company as it is known in the United States Courts, the case 
 having been carried to the Circuit Court of the United States for 
 the District of Massachusettes. Mr. Bucher was injured while 
 travelling on the Lord's day. His plea was that he was hasten- 
 ing to Boston where he expected important word from a sick 
 sister, and that the travelling was therefore necessary. The Su- 
 preme Judicial Court of Massachusettes held that there was no 
 evidence that he was travelling either from necessity or charity. 
 (131 Mass. 156, 1881.) 
 
 When the case came before the United States District Court 
 it was held that the Courts of the United States are to adopt and 
 follow the decisions of the highest courts of a State in questions 
 which concern merely the constitution or laws of that State. It 
 was clear that the Courts of Massachusettes uniformly inter- 
 preted the law as indicated above, and although the District 
 Court of the United States did not approve of the interpretation 
 it was still under obligation to follow it. Justices Harlan and 
 Field dissented from this view, holding that in such cases United 
 States Courts were free to render opinions according to their 
 own views of justice. (125 U. S. 555, 1887.) 
 
 While there are some excellent features in the Sabbath law 
 of Massachusetts, and while some of the judicial opinions add 
 something to the argument for such laws, it must be confessed 
 that both the law and the opinions are quite disappointing. The 
 long list of exception to the operation of the prohibitory clauses, 
 some of which would be included under the clause relating to 
 works of necessity and charity, greatly weakens the law by men- 
 tioning many things which are not matters of necessity and 
 charity, and which interfere with the peace and quietness of the 
 ■day. This State at one time had one of the best of Sabbath laws. 
 Now it has one of the worst. 
 
 With a very few exceptions, the opinions of the Supreme 
 Court display only a mediocre standard of ability. They are 
 •chiefly concerned with the maintaining of a hereditary view of 
 the law as applied to contracts and travelling on the Lord's day, 
 and that view is almost entirely annulled by recent legislation. 
 It may be that the effort of the courts to uphold the traditional 
 A'iew had something to do with the adoption of the exceptions 
 
MINNESOTA. 107 
 
 ■whereby that view has become ancient history. In the cases of 
 contracts made on the Sabbath involving fraud, would it not be 
 far better, while holding the contract illegal, to allow action 
 against the one who in addition to violating the Sabbath law has 
 also violated the law against fraud? Not to do so brings this law 
 into disrepute as a screen to shield dishonest people. 
 
 MINNESOTA. (1891.) 
 
 The Section of the Penal Code of Minnesota relating to the 
 Sabbath are entitled, "Of Crimes against Religious Liberty and 
 Conscience." They are as follows : 
 
 "6178. The Sabbath. — The first day of the week being by general 
 consent set apart for rest and religious uses, the law prohibits the do- 
 ing on that day of certain acts hereinafter specified, which are serious 
 interruptions of the repose and religious liberty of the community. 
 
 "6179. Sabbath breaking. — A violation of the foregoing prohibi- 
 tion is Sabbath breaking. 
 
 "6180. Sunday defined. — Under the term "day," as employed in 
 the phrase "first day of the week," when used in this chapter, is includ- 
 ■ed all the time from midnight to midnight. 
 
 "6181. Labor on Sunday. — All labor on Sunday is prohibited ex- 
 cepting the works of necessity or charity. In works of necessity or 
 charity is included whatever is needful during the day for good order, 
 health or comfort of the community. Provided however, that keeping 
 open a barber shop on Sunday for the purpose of cutting hair and shav- 
 ing beards shall not be deemed a work of necessity or charity. 
 
 "6182. Persons observing another day as a Sabbath. — It is a suf- 
 ficient defense to a prosecution for servile labor on the first day of the 
 week that the defendant uniformily keeps another day of the week as 
 holy time, and does not labor upon that day, and that the labor com- 
 plained of was done in such manner as not to interrupt or disturb 
 other persons in observing the first day of the week as holy time. 
 
 "6183. Public Sports. — All shooting, hunting, fishing, playing, 
 horse racing, gaming, or other public sports, exercises or shows, upon 
 the first day of the week, and all noise disturbing the peace of the day, 
 are prohibited. 
 
 "6184. Trades, manufactures, and mechanical employments. — All 
 trades, manufactures, and mechanical employments upon the first day 
 of the week are prohibited, except that when the same are works of 
 necessity they may be performed on that day in their usual and or- 
 derly manner, so as not to interfere with the repose and religious lib- 
 erty of the community. 
 
 "6185. Public traffic. — All manner of public selling or offering for 
 sale of any property upon Sunday is prohibited, except that articles of 
 food may be sold and supplied at any time before ten o'clock in the 
 
io8 .MINNESOTA. 
 
 morning, and except also that meals may be sold to be eaten on the 
 premises where sold or served elsewhere by caterers; and prepared 
 tobacco in places other than where spirituous or malt liquors or wines 
 are kept or offered for sale, and fruit, confectionery, newspapers, drugs, 
 medicines, and surgical appliances may be sold in a quiet and orderly 
 manner at any time of the day. 
 
 "6186. Serving process on Sunday prohibited. — All service of legal 
 process of any kind whatever, upon the first day of the week, is prohib- 
 ited, except in cases of breach of the peace, or apprehended breach of 
 the peace, or when sued out for the apprehension of a person charged 
 with crime, or except where such service is specially authorized by 
 statute. 
 
 "6187. Punishment of Sabbath breaking. — Sabbath breaking is a 
 misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not less than one dollar and not 
 more than ten dollars, or by imprisonment in a county jail not ex- 
 ceeding five days, or by both." (Vol. II, pp. 499, 500). 
 
 The constitutionality of the Minnesota Sabbath law was af- 
 firmed by the Supreme Court in 1875, in the case of the State v. 
 Ludwig. Mr. Ludwig, a saloon keeper in Minneapolis, was 
 charged with selling liquor on the Sabbath in violation of a city 
 ordinance which required saloons to be closed on that day. He 
 was first tried before a justice of the peace and found guilty. He 
 appealed and the case finally reached the Supreme Court. Mr. 
 Ludwig's plea was that the law is tniconstitutional, but its con- 
 stitutionality was affirmed as follows : 
 
 "It is unnecessary for us, at this time, to consider to what extent 
 the legislature may, in harmony with the constitution, make laws 
 recognizing the Christian Sabbath, and regulating its observance. All 
 the authorities concur that the legislature may by law establish, as a 
 civil and political institution, the first day of the week as, a day of rest, 
 and may prohibit, upon it, the performance of any manner of labor, 
 business or work, except only works of necessity and charity, and may 
 prohibit anything which tends to injure the public morals, or disturb 
 the peace and good order of the day." (21 Minn. 202). 
 
 The constitutionality of the law was put to the test again in 
 1898, in the case of the State v. Petit. Mr. Petit was tried for 
 keeping open a barber shop on Sabbath. The case was carried 
 to the Supreme Court. The only question raised was the consti- 
 tutionality of the law. The following extracts are instructive : 
 "In some states it has been held that Christianity is part of the 
 common law of this country, and Sunday legislation is upheld, in whole 
 or in part, upon that ground. Even if permissible, it is not necessary 
 to resort to any such reason to sustain such legislation. The ground' 
 upon which such legislation is generally upheld is that it is a sanitary 
 
MIXXESOTA. 109 
 
 measure, and as such a legitimate exercise of the police power. It pro- 
 ceeds upon the theory, entertained by most of those who have investi- 
 gated the subject, that the physical, intellectual and moral welfare of 
 mankind requires a periodical day of rest from labor, and as some par- 
 ticular day must be fixed, the one most naturally selected is that which 
 is regarded as sacred by the greatest number of citizens. and'Vhich by 
 custom is generally devoted to religious worship, or rest and recreation, 
 as this causes the least interference with business or existing customs. 
 
 "It is sometimes said that mankind will seek cessation of labor at 
 proper times by the natural influences of the law of self-preservation; 
 also that, if a man desires to engage on Sunday in any kind of work or 
 business which does not interfere with the rights of others, he has an 
 absolute right to do so, and to choose his own time of rest as he sees 
 fit. The answer to this is that all men are not in fact independent and 
 at liberty to work when they choose. Labor is in a great degree depen- 
 dent upon capital, and, unless the exercise of power which capital af- 
 fords is restrained, those who are obliged to labor will not possess the 
 freedom for rest which they would otherwise exercise. 
 
 "The object of the law is not so much to protect those who can rest 
 at pleasure as to afford rest to those who need it, and who, from the 
 conditions of society, could not otherwise obtain it. Moreover, if the 
 law was not obligatory upon all, and those who desired to do so were 
 permitted to engage in their usual vocation on Sunday, others engaged 
 in the same kind of labor or business might, against their wishes, be 
 compelled by the laws of competition in business to do likewise." (74 
 Minn., 376). 
 
 The effort was also made to have the law declared unconsti- 
 tutional because it specially mentions the keeping open of bar- 
 ber shops and declares it not to be a work of necessity or char- 
 ity. The contention was that this was "class legislation." 
 
 The Court held that "under the original statute, what were works of 
 necessity or charity was largely left to be decided as a question of fact, 
 which would often be a question for the jury. The effect of the amend- 
 ment (of 1887) was to make this a question of law, instead of fact, as to 
 keeping a barber shop open. In the exercise of the police power in 
 establishing a day of rest, a very large discretion must be allowed to 
 the legislature in determining what kinds of labor or business should 
 be prohibited, and what are and what are not works of necesisty of 
 charity." (74 Minn. 376). 
 
 The Supreme ourt of IMinnesota, in 1881, gave a decision as 
 to responsibility for accidents occuring on the Sabbath in con- 
 nection with acts forbidden by the statute. A young man was 
 drowned in the St. Croix River while engaged on an excursion 
 •on the Sabbath. His mother entered suit to recover damages. 
 The defendant contended that the deceased was engaged in an 
 
no MINNESOTA. 
 
 unlawful act, and damages could not therefore be recovered. 
 
 The Court said : 
 
 "The defendants' liability is not affected by the fact that the injury 
 resulting in his death occurred while deceased was engaged on an ex- 
 cursion with other passengers upon defendants' steamboat in violation 
 of the Sunday law." "The defendants on that day occupied the relation 
 of common carriers of passengers, and their general obligation to use 
 such care and diligence as the law enjoins is not limited by the con- 
 tract with the passengers, nor with the person who engaged the use 
 of the boat and the services of the crew for that day, but is governed 
 by considerations of public policy. That the undertaking was unlaw- 
 ful does not touch the question." "The suggestion that if the deceased 
 had not joined the excursion he would have escaped, may perhaps 
 serve to enforce a valuable lesson which finds a sanction in law and 
 morals, but as between him and the defendants he was rightfully 
 there." (Opsahl v. Judd. 30 Minn. 126). 
 
 Under the statute as it was prior to 1886, the publishing and 
 selling of newspapers on the Sabbath was illegal. The law was 
 amended in that year so as to permit their sale in a quiet and 
 orderly way. 
 
 In the case of Handy v. St. Paul Globe Publishing Com- 
 pany in which action was brought to recover damages for breach 
 of contract, the Court said : 
 
 "Unless the issuing and circulating a newspaper on Sunday is^ 
 within the meaning of the statute, a work of necessity, it is prohibited 
 by it as much as any other business or work. The newspaper is a nec- 
 essity of modern life and business, but it does not follow that to issue 
 and circulate it on Sunday is a necessity. There are a great many 
 other kinds of business just as necessary; many, indeed most kinds. 
 of manufactures and mercantile business are indispensable to the pres- 
 ent needs of men, but no one would say that, because necessary gen- 
 erally, the prosecution of such business on Sunday is a work of neces- 
 sity." (41 Minn. 188). 
 
 In Ward v. Ward, the court gave the following liberal inter- 
 pretation of the law as revised in 1886. 
 
 "There is no inhibition in the statute upon a private casual sale." 
 "The statute does not cover or affect contracts or casual sales m?ide 
 privately, and without violating, or tending to produce a violation of,, 
 the public order and solemnity of the day. It was not designed to for- 
 bid business transactions which in no manner affect the rights of others 
 who are properly observing the day." (75 Minn. 269). 
 
 Some of the exceptions in section 6185 introduce an element 
 of weakness into an otherwise excellent law. 
 
 The opinion rendered in State v. Petit would be stronger if^ 
 
MISSISSIPPI. Ill 
 
 instead of denying- the necessity of basing the constitutionality of 
 the statute on the proposition that Christianity is part of tlie com- 
 mon law, this ground had been unquestioningly set forth. The 
 plea for the law on the laboring man's account is admirable. The 
 distinction made concerning necessity in Handy v. S. Paul Globe 
 show great clearness of perception and should have restrained the 
 legislature from legalize Sunday newspapers. • 
 
 MISSISSIPPI. (1892.) 
 
 "Crimes and misdemeanors," is the title of Chapter 29 of the 
 Code of Mississippi. The Sections relating to the first day of the 
 week arc entitled, "The Sabbath." They are as follows: 
 
 "1291. If any person on the first day of the week, commonly 
 called Sunday, shall himself labor at his own or any other trade, call- 
 ing or business, or shall employ his apprentice or servant in labor or 
 other business, except it be in the ordinary household offices of daily 
 necessity, or other work of necessity or charity, he shall, on convic- 
 tion, be fined not more than twenty dollars for every offense, deem- 
 ing every apprentice or servant so employed as constituting a distinct 
 offense; but nothing in this section shall apply to labor on railroads or 
 steamboats. 
 
 "1292. A merchant, shopkeeper, or other person, shall not keep 
 open store, or dispose of any wares or merchandise, goods or chattels, 
 on Sunday, or sell or barter the same; and every person so offending 
 shall, on conviction, be fined not more than twenty dollars for every 
 such offense; but this shall not apply to apothecaries or druggists who. 
 may open their stores for the sale of medicines. 
 
 "1293. If any person shall engage in, show forth, exhibit, act, rep- 
 resent, perform, or cause to be shown forth, acted, repre- 
 sented or performed, any interludes, farces or plays of any kind, or 
 any games, tricks, ball-playing of any kind, juggling sleight of hand, 
 or feats of dexterity, agility of body, or any bear-baiting or any bull- 
 fighting, horse-racing, or cock-fighting, or any such like show or exhi- 
 bition whatsoever, on Sunday, every person so offending shall be fined 
 not more than fifty dollars. 
 
 "1294. If any person shall hunt with a gun or with dogs, or fish 
 in any way on Sunday, he shall, on conviction, be fined not less than 
 five dollars nor more than twenty dollars. 
 
 "1295. It shall not be lawful for a person having a license to sell 
 vinous or spirituous liquors, to keep open the dram-shop, bar, or place 
 where such liquors are sold, or to sell any such liquors, on the first 
 day of the week, commonly called Sunday; and a person so offending 
 shall be liable to a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than 
 
112 MISSISSIPPI. 
 
 one hundred dollars for each offense, or shall be imprisoned therefor 
 not exceding thirty days in the county jail or both." (pp. 373, 374). 
 
 The proper construction of this law was considered in the 
 case of Miller v. Lynch. (38 Miss. 344, i860). A settlement 
 between these two men of certain business transactions was made 
 on the Sabbath, and a note given Miller by Lynch for a balance 
 due him. On this note action was brought, and the defense was 
 that the note was executed on Sabbath and therefore void. The 
 case was carried to the High Court of Errors and Appeals. In 
 rendering its decision this court called attention to the difference 
 between our Statutes and that of England 29, Car. IL Ch. 7, Sec. 
 2. The latter says, "No tradesman, artificer, workman, laborer, 
 or other person whatsoever, shall do or exercise any worldly 
 labor, business, or work of their ordinary callings upon the 
 Lord's day, or any part thereof (works of necessity or charity 
 ■only excepted). But the Statute of Mississippi forbids labor at 
 his own or any other trade or calling." In this case the Court 
 held the note to be void. 
 
 A case similar to this was that of Kountz v. Price et al. The 
 court in speaking of contracts made on Sabbath said : 
 
 "Such contracts are not only positively prohibited by the law of 
 the land, but they are generally admitted, in Christian communitlea, 
 to be in violation of the law of God. Sound morality would, therefore, 
 appear to dictate that enactments of the legislature, founded, as this 
 manifestly is, on the divine law, should at least have the same force, 
 and be held at least as inviolable, as the ordinary statutes prohibiting 
 acts merely on grounds of social or political convenience." "Contracts 
 made on Sunday are void because they are made on that day, which 
 Is prohibited. It is the time of the act done, that vitiates it." (40 
 Miss. 341, 1866.) 
 
 In the case of Block v. McMurry, the court defined what is 
 signified by a contract made on Sabbath being void: 
 
 "When it is declared that the Sunday contract of sale is void, the 
 precise extent of that doctrine practically is, that the courts will not 
 give the remedies of the law to assist either party engaged in the il- 
 legal transaction. They will not help the seller to recover the price; 
 nor can the buyer maintain an action on any warranty, deceit, or fraud 
 in the sale." "The law observes a strict and impartial neutrality: it 
 will not interpose at the solicitation of either party, but says to both; 
 'This transaction was a violation of the statute; both of you are 
 equally guilty, and each of you must remain in the position in which 
 ;you have placed yourselves.' " (56 Miss. 217, 1878.) 
 
NEW JERSEY. 113 
 
 The meaning of the exception to the law was passed upon 
 'by the Supreme Court in the case of Telegraph Co. v. McLaurin 
 
 in 1892. 
 
 A murder had been committed at Cleveland, Miss., on Sabbath, 
 and a telegram to McLaurin, an attorney in Vicksburgh, was placed 
 in the hands of the Telegraph Company, and paid for the day of the 
 murder, asking him to go to Cleveland to defend the murderer in the 
 preliminary hearing. The message was not sent till the next day, and 
 McLaurin sued the company for damages and won the suit. The Su- 
 preme Court said that in law courts the word necessity is not regarded 
 in the same sense as it is in the Shorter Catechism, but in an "en- 
 larged meaning of necessity so as to embrace social necessity." "It 
 ■may be that the true view is that if a telegraph company should, in 
 a spirit of piety or regard for the law, refuse to receive a message 
 for transmission on Sunday, and was sued for that, and invoked the 
 law of God and the State as a defense, it would find this ample pro- 
 tection against a claim for damages; but that the piety which admits 
 ■of open offices and receipt of messages and pay for their dispatch on 
 Sunday, should be equal to the duty of transmission and delivery, as 
 on other days." 
 
 The law of Mississippi, were it not for the exception in favor 
 •of railroads and steamboats, would be one of the best. 
 
 NEW JERSEY. (1895.) 
 
 "Vice and Immoradity" is the title of the Sections of the 
 New Jersey Code relating to the Sabbath. They are as follows : 
 ''1. That no travelling, worldly employment or business, ordinary 
 •or servile labor or work either upon land or water (works of necessity 
 and charity excepted), nor shooting, fishing (not including fishing with 
 a seine or net, which is hereafter provided for), sporting, hunting, gun- 
 ning, racing, or frequenting of tippling-houses, or any interludes or 
 plays, dancing, singing, fiddling or other music for the saKe of merri- 
 met, nor any playing at football, fives, nine-pins, bowls, long-bullets or 
 •quoits, nor any other kind of playing, sports, pastimes, or diversions, 
 shall be done, performed, used or practiced, by any person or persons 
 within this State, on the Christian Sabbath, or first day of the week, 
 commonly called Sunday; and that every person, being of the age of 
 fourteen years or upwards, offending in the premises, shall for every 
 such offense, forfeit and pay, to the use of the poor of the township in 
 which such offense shall be committed, the sum of one dollar; and 
 that no person shall cry, show forth, or expose to sale, any wares, 
 merchandise, fruit, herbs, meat, fish, goods, or chattels, upon the first 
 lay of the week, commonly called Sunday, or sell or barter the same, 
 lupon pain that every person so offending shall forfeit and pay to the 
 
1 14 ]S^EW JERSEY. 
 
 use of the poor of the township where such offense shall be committed,, 
 the sum of two dollars, and if any person offending in the prem- 
 ises shall be thereof convicted before any justice of the peace for the- 
 county where the offense shall be committed, upon the view 
 of the said justice, or confession of the party offending, or 
 proof of any witness or witnesses upon oath or affirmation, then 
 the said justice before whom such conviction shall be had, shall di- 
 rect and send his warrant, under his hand and seal, to some constable 
 of the county where the offense shall have been committed, command- 
 ing him to levy the said forfeitures or penalties by distress and sale- 
 of the goods and chattels of such offenders, and to pay the money 
 therefrom arising to the overseers of the poor of the township where- 
 the said offense or offenses shall have been committed, for the use of 
 the poor thereof; and in case no such distress can be had, then every 
 such offender shall, by a warrant under the hand and seal of the said 
 justice, be committed to the common jail of the said county, or to the 
 jail of any city or town corporate within the same, for a term not 
 exceeding ten days, to be certainly expressed in warrant; and further, 
 that if any person shall be found fishing, sporting, playing, dancing, 
 fiddling, shooting, hunting, gunning, travelling, or going to or returning 
 from any market or landing with carts, wagons or sleds, or behaving 
 in a disorderly manner, on the first day of the week, called Sun- 
 day, it shall be lawful for any constable, or other citizen, 
 to stop every person so offending, and to detain him or her till the 
 next day, to be dealt with according to law: provided al- 
 ways, that no person going to or returning from any church or place 
 of worship, within the distance of twenty miles, or going to call a 
 physician, surgeon, or midwife, or carrying a mail to or from any post 
 office, or going express by order of any public officer, shall be consid- 
 ered as travelling within the meaning of this act; and provided also, 
 that nothing in this act contained shall be construed to prohibit the 
 dressing of victuals in private families or in lodging houses, inns and 
 other houses of entertainment for the use of sojourners, travelers, or- 
 strangers; and provided further, that it shall and may be lawful for 
 any railroad company in this State to run one passenger train each 
 way over their roads on Sunday, for the accommodation of citizens of" 
 this State. 
 
 "2. No person shall on the first day of the week, called Sunday, 
 cast, draw, or make use of any seine or net, for the purpose of catch- 
 ing fish in any pond, lake, stream or river, within the territorial limits 
 or jurisdiction of this State, or be aiding or assisting therein; and' 
 every person offending in the premises shall, on being thereof con- 
 victed before any justice of the peace for the county where the of- 
 fense shall be committed, upon the view of the said justice, or confes- 
 sion of the party offending, or proof of any witness or witnesses upoa 
 oath or affirmation; forfeit and pay the sum of fourteen dollars for 
 
NEW JERSEY. 115 
 
 every such offense." (In case of non-payment goods may be levied on 
 as in Section 1 and if there are no goods to levy on the offender may- 
 be committed to jail till the fine and costs are paid.) 
 
 '•3. If any stage or stages shall be driven through any part of 
 this State on the first day of the week, called Sunday, except suffici- 
 ent reason shall be offered to show that it be done in cases of necessi- 
 ty or mercy, or in case of cari-ying the mail to or from any post-office, 
 the driver or drivers, the proprietor or proprietors of such stage or 
 stages, shall, on being thereof convicted before any justice of the peace 
 
 for the county where the offense shall be committee forfeit and 
 
 pay the sum of eight dollars for every such offense. (In case of non- 
 payment the provisions of Section 2 apply.) 
 
 "4. No wagoner, carter, drayman, drover, butcher, or any of his 
 or their servants, shall ply or travel with his or their wagons, carts; 
 or drays, or shall load or unload any goods, wares, merchandise, or 
 produce, or drive cattle, sheep or swine, in any part of this State, on 
 the first day of the week, called Sunday, under the penalty of two- 
 dollars for every offense " 
 
 5. No writ, process, warrant, order, judgment or decree, shall be 
 served on Sabbath. (Vol. 3, pp. 3707-3709). 
 
 In 1884, it was enacted that "It shall be lawful for any court or 
 county officer to publish any notice or advertisement, now required by- 
 law to be published in any newspaper in this State, in any Sunday 
 newspaper which has been published in such county for the period of 
 at least one year." 
 
 In 1881 an act was passed authorizing boards of trustees, directors, 
 commissioners, or other corporate authorities of incorporated camp- 
 meeting or seaside re.jorts to regulate and restrain the running of 
 trains and cars of all kinds within their premises, and also to regulate 
 and restrain the landing of persons on piers within their premises. 
 
 In 181 1 the Supreme Court of New Jersey said that it was 
 not prepared to say that all contracts made on Siniday are void, 
 (i and 2. N. J. 526.) In 1890 the Court of Chancery declared^ 
 without qualification, such contracts to be void. 
 
 In 1818, in the case of Van Riper v. Van Riper, which in- 
 volved the question of the rendering of a verdict by a lower 
 court on the Sal:)bath, the Supreme Court said: 
 
 "When the jury are so unfortunate as not to agree until they en- 
 croach on the Lord's day, it is a work of necessity then to receive 
 their verdict." Justice Rossell in concurring said, "Although it is the- 
 solemn duty, both of courts and juries, so to arrange their business.. 
 and so to discharge their duties, as never to encroach in the smallest- 
 degree on the Sabbath, if it be possible to avoid it; yet where the 
 jury have been compelled to reach the morning of that day before 
 their verdict was prepared, I see no mode of proceeding so proper as 
 
^i6 NEW JERSEY. 
 
 to receive the verdict, dismiss the jury and parties,' and at such future 
 day as may be convenient an'd proper, tal^e the subsequent proceed- 
 ings." (1 South, 156.) 
 
 When the time for the performance of a contract falls on Sab- 
 toath a compliance on the following day will be a sufficient perform- 
 ance. (27 N. J. 68.) 
 
 In 1862 in the case of State v. Williams the Supreme Court said: 
 •"The legislation of this State, from an early period, has been directed 
 to the object of preserving to its citizens a quiet day of rest and wor- 
 ship upon one day of the seven, and now the sale of spirituous and 
 fermented liquors on Sunday is absolutely prohibited, even to those 
 licensed to keep an inn. Conduct, therefore, which may be allow- 
 •able on other days, if permitted on Sunday, may make a house dis- 
 orderly; because it is greatly to the benefit of all classes of the com- 
 munity, and especially of those earning their bread by daily labor, that 
 it should be set apart for quiet repose and religious observances." 
 <1 Vroom, 102, 1862). 
 
 The Court of Errors and Appeals in 1889 in a case involv- 
 ing an accident to a woman travelling on the railroad on Sab- 
 "bath, said.: 
 
 "Nor was the plaintiff's violation of the Sunday law, in a legal 
 sense, the cause of her injury." "The rule may be considered as set- 
 tled, that a railroad company, having accepted a passenger, is under 
 an obligation to take due and reasonable care for his safety, and that 
 'that obligation arises by implication of law independent of contract." 
 <23 Vroom. 169.) 
 
 To show how common it has been for Sabbath breakers to 
 try to avoid duties involved in contracts made on the Sabbath by 
 pleading the prohibitions of the law, it may be noted that even 
 after the passage of the law allowing railroads to run one passen- 
 ger train each way on Sabbath, railroad companies tried escape 
 liability for damages in case of accidents, by setting up the plea 
 that the people injured were travelling in violation of law. The 
 •courts, however, allowed damages. (46 N. J- /•) 
 
 In 1901 the Supreme Court held that "every transaction which, if 
 performed on a week day would be enforceable in a court of justice, 
 if performed on Sabbath is void, and cannot be validated by ratifi- 
 'cation; but an express promise afterwards made on the basis of the 
 "consideration emanating from the tainted contract is binding." (66 
 .^'. J. 367.) 
 
 The exception made to the law in favor of legal notices in 
 'Sunday papers is the chief element of weakness in this otherwise 
 ^excellent statute. The opinions of the courts do not take up the 
 
NEW YORK. 117- 
 
 constitntional grounds of the law, but the interpretations giver* 
 are in the main to be commended. 
 
 NEW YORK. (1892.) 
 
 The Penal Code of the State of New York, Title X., Chapter 
 1., treating of crimes against Religious Liberty and Conscience,, 
 contains the following summary of the Sabbath Laws of the 
 State : 
 
 "259. The Sabbath.— The first day of the week being by general 
 consent set apart for rest and religious uses, the law prohibits the 
 doing on that day of certain acts hereinafter specified, which are seri- 
 ous interruptions of the repose and religious liberty of the community. 
 
 "260. Sabbath breaking.— A violation of the foregoing prohibition 
 is Sabbath-breaking. 
 
 "263. Servile labor. — All labor on Sunday is prohibited, excepting 
 the works of necessity or charity. In works of necessity or charity 
 is included whatever is needful during the day for the good order^ 
 health or comfort of the community. 
 
 "264. Persons observing another day as a Sabbath. — It is a suffi- 
 cient defense to a prosecution for work or labor on the first day of 
 the week, that the defendant uniformly keeps another day of the week, 
 as holy time, and does not labor on that day, and that the labor com- 
 plained of was done in such manner as not to interrupt or disturb other 
 persons in observing the first day of the week as holy time. 
 
 "265. — Public sports.. — All shooting, hunting, fishing, playing, horse- 
 racing, gaming or other public sports, exercises or shows, upon the- 
 first day of the week, and all noise disturbing the peace of the day,, 
 are prohibited. 
 
 "266. Trades, maufacturers and mechanical employments. — All) 
 trades, manufacturers, agricultural or mechanical employments upott 
 the first day of the week are prohibited, except that when the same 
 are works of necessity they may be performed on that day in their 
 usual and orderly manner, so as not to interfere with the repose and 
 religious liberty of the community 
 
 "267. Public traffic. — All manner of public selling or offering for 
 sale of any property upon Sunday is prohibited, except that articles of 
 food may be sold and supplied at any time before ten o'clock in the 
 morning, and except also that meals may be sold to be eaten on the 
 premises where sold or served elsewhere by caterers; and prepared 
 tobacco in places other than where spirituous or malt liquors are kept 
 or offered for sale, and fruit, confectionery, newspapers, drugs, medi- 
 cines, and surgical appliances may be sold in a quiet and orderly man- 
 ner at any time of the day. 
 
ii8 NEW YORK. 
 
 "268. Serving process on Sunday prohibited. — All serving of legal 
 process of any kind whatever, upon the first day of the week, is pro- 
 hibited, except in cases of breach of the peace, or apprehended breach 
 of the peace, or when sued out for the apprehension of a person 
 charged with crime, or except where such service is speci- 
 ally authorized by statute. Service of any process upon said day ex- 
 cept as herein permitted is absolutely void for any and every purpose 
 whatever. 
 
 "269. Sabbath-breaking.— Sabbath-breaking is a misdemeanor, 
 punishable by a fine not less than five dollars and not more than ten 
 •dollars, or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding five days, 
 ■or by both, but for a second or other offense, where the party shall 
 liave been previously convicted, it shall be punishable by a fine not 
 less than ten dollars and not more than twenty dollars, and by im- 
 prisonment in a county jail not less than five nor more than twenty 
 ■days. 
 
 "270. Forfeiture of commodities exposed for sale. — In addition to 
 the penalty imposed by the last section, all property and commodities 
 •exposed for sale on the first day of the week in violation of the pro- 
 "visions of this chapter shall be forfeited. Upon conviction of the of- 
 fender by the justice of a county, or by a mayor, recorder or alderman 
 of a city, such officer shall issue a warrant for the seizure of the for- 
 feited articles, which, when seized, shall be sold on one day's notice, 
 and the proceeds paid to the overseers of the poor, for the use of 
 the poor of the town or city. 
 
 "271. Remedy for maliciously serving process. — Whoever malici- 
 'Ously procures any process in a civil action to be served on Saturday, 
 tupon any person who keeps Saturday as holy time, and does not labor 
 •on that day, or serves upon him any process returnable on that day, 
 ■or maliciously procures any civil action to which such person is a 
 I)arty to be adjourned to that day for trial, is guilty of a misdemeanor. 
 
 "272. Compelling adoption of a form of belief. — An attempt by 
 ■means of threats or violence, to compel any person to adopt, practice 
 lOr profess a particular form of religious belief, is a misdemeanor. 
 
 "273. Preventing performance of religious acts. — A person who 
 'Willfully prevents, by threats or violence, another person from per- 
 forming any lawful act enjoined upon or recommended to such person 
 l»y the religion which he professes, is guilty of a misdemeanor. 
 
 "274. Disturbing religious meetings. — A person wno willfully dis- 
 turbs, interrupts or disquiets any assemblage of people met for relig- 
 ious worship, by any of the acts enumerated in the next section, is 
 guilty of a misdemeanor. 
 
 "275. Id; definition of the offense. — The following acts, or any of 
 ihem, constitute disturbance of a religious meeting: 
 
 "1. Uttering any profane discourse, committing any rude or in- 
 decent act, or making any unnecessary noise, either within the place 
 
NEW YORK. 119 
 
 where such meeting is held, or so near it as to disturb the order and 
 •solemnity of the meeting; 
 
 "2. Engaging in, or promoting, within two miles of the place 
 where a religious meeting is held, any racing of animals or gaming of 
 -any description; 
 
 "3. Obstructing in any manner, without authority of law, within 
 the like distance, free passage along a highway to the place of such 
 meeting. 
 
 "276. Processions and parades.— Punishment.— All processions and 
 parades on Sunday in any city, excepting only funeral processions for 
 the actual burial of the dead, and processions to and from a place of 
 worship in connection with a religious service there celebrated, are 
 forbidden; and in such excepted cases there shall be no music, fire- 
 works, discharge of cannon or fire-arms, or other disturbing noise. At 
 a military funeral, and at the burial of a national guardsman or of a 
 deceased member of an association of veteran soldiers, or of a dis- 
 banded militia regiment, music may be played while escorting the 
 body, but not within one block of a place of worship where service is 
 "then celebrated. 
 
 "A person willfully violating any provision of this section is pun- 
 ishable by fine not exceeding twenty dollars, or imprisonment not ex- 
 ceeding ten days, or by both. 
 
 "277. Theatrical and other performances. — The 'performance of 
 any tragedy, comedy, opera, ballet, farce, negro minstrelsy, negro or 
 other dancing, trial of strength, or any part or parts therein, or any 
 circus, equestrian, or dramatic performance or exercise, or any per- 
 formance or exercise of jugglers, acrobats, club performances or rope 
 ■dancers, on the first- day of the week, is forbidden ; and every person 
 aiding in such exhibition, performance or exercise, by advertisement, 
 posting or otherwise, and every owner or lessee of any garden, build- 
 ing or other room, place or structure, who leases or lets the same 
 for the purpose of any such exhibition or performance or exercise, or 
 who assents to the use of the same for any such purpose, if it be so 
 ^sed, is guilty of a misdemeanor. 
 
 "In addition to the punishment therefor provided by statute, every 
 person violating this section is subject to a penalty of five hundred 
 dollars; which penalty "The Society for the Reformation of Juvenile 
 Delinquents" in the city of New York, for the use of that society, and 
 the overseers of the poor in any other city or town, for the use of the 
 poor, are authorized, in the name of the people of this State, to re- 
 -cover. Besides this penalty, every such exhibition, performance or ex- 
 ercise, of itself, annuls any license which may have been previously 
 -obtained by the manager, superintendent, agent, owner or lessee, using 
 ■or letting such building, garden, rooms, place or other structure, or 
 •consenting to such exhibition, performance or exercise, (pp. 70-74.) 
 "Sunday papers. — 1. All contracts or agreements of any nature 
 
I20 NEW YORK. 
 
 with the publishers or proprietors of any paper dated, published or- 
 issued on the first day of the week shall be as valid, legal and binding,, 
 as contracts made with newspapers dated or published on any other 
 day of the week. (General Laws, Vol. 3, p. 384S.) 
 
 "Barbering prohibited; exceptions; penalties. — 1. Any person who 
 carries on or engages in the business of shaving, hair cutting or other 
 work of a barber on the first day of the week, shall be deemed guilty 
 of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined not more than 
 five dollars; and upon a second conviction for a like offense shall be 
 fined not less than ten dollars and not more than twenty-five dollars,, 
 or be imprisoned in the county jail for a period of not less than ten 
 days, nor more than twenty-five days, or be punishable by both such; 
 fine and such imprisonment at the discretion of the court or magis- 
 trate; provided, that in the City of New York, and the village of Sara- 
 toga Springs, barber shops or other places where a barber is engaged; 
 in shaving, hair cutting, or other work of a barber, may be kept open, 
 and the work of a barber may be performed therein until one o'clock 
 of the afternoon of the first day of the week. (General Laws, Vol. 3,. 
 pp. 3848, 3849.) 
 
 Liquor may not be sold on the Sabbath, except by druggists on 
 physicians' prescriptions and by hotel keepers to guests. 
 
 Private contracts made on the Sabbath are valid. (Batsford v. 
 Every, 44 Barb. 618). 
 
 One of the oldest cases in which the constittitionality of this 
 and other moral statutes was upheld was the famous blasphemy 
 case of the People against Ruggles. Justice Kent delivered the 
 opinion of the court. 
 
 It was contended by Cotmsel for Ruggles that the offense 
 charged is not punishable by the law of New York, because 
 "Christianity did not make a part of the common law of this 
 State." The Court said : 
 
 "Christianity, in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and 
 taught in the Bible, is not unknown to our law. The statute for pre- 
 venting immorality consecrates the first day of the week, as holy time,, 
 and considers the violation of it immoral. This was only the continu- 
 ation, in substance, of a law of the colony which declared, that the pro- 
 fanation of the Lord's day was 'the great scandal of the Christian 
 faith.' " (8 Johnston 290, 1811.) 
 
 The Superior Court in 1859, called attention to the fact that the 
 statute "explicitly recognizes the first day of the week as 'holy time.' " 
 The Court also said that the Scripture passages found in Mark 16:2; 
 Matthew 28:1; Luke 24:1; and John 21, with the phrase, the Lord's 
 Day, used in Rev. 1:10; the practice of assembling of Christians re- 
 corded in 1 Cor. 16:2, and the usage of Christians traced back to 
 remote antiquity, "Constitute an argument of irresistible force, to- 
 
NEW YORK. 121 
 
 prove that the Jewish Sabbath was superseded; that the day of the 
 resurrection was substituted, and that the great injunction of the an- 
 cient law to lieep it holy, was applicable to this new day of a greater 
 deliverance. Ecclesiastical history is uniform to show that its observ- 
 ance as a rule for all who profess themselves Christians, has been rec- 
 ognized and transmitted by the practice of apostles, the obedience of 
 the disciples, the recognition of canons, and the edicts of emperors, 
 monarchs and States, from the earliest rise of Christianity through 
 all the ages of its progress." (4 Bosworth, 298, Campbell v. The In- 
 ternational Life Assurance Society of London.) 
 
 In i860, in the New York Superior Court the constitution- 
 ality of the act prohibiting certain exhibitions and plays within 
 the city and county of New York, on Sabbath, was sustained. 
 The Court said : 
 
 "The learned counsel of the plaintiffs has entered largely into the 
 question of the origin and sanction of the Christian Sabbath. 
 It may not be essential, but it is far from being irrevelant, to 
 the decision of the pi'esent case, to sustain the divine au- 
 thority of the institution." The restriction placed upon the use on the 
 Lord's day, of property of all kinds, including cattle in agricultural 
 labor, the selling of merchandise, and of premises for certain specific 
 purposes, is held not to be in violation of the constitution. "The re- 
 striction in each instance rests upon the principle of the preserva- 
 tion of good order, and the public morality and peace." (20 Howard's- 
 Practice Reports, 76, 1860.) 
 
 A most important decision was rendered by the Supreme 
 Court of New York at the February term of 1861, in the case of 
 Gustav Lindenmuller v. the People, (t^t. Barb. 548-578.) In 
 this opinion the entire question of Sabbath legislation was con- 
 sidered in a most thorough manner, and it has ever since been 
 regarded as settling most of the disputed points. It is con- 
 stantly referred to and quoted by courts of all grades both in 
 New York and in other States. It will be in place therefore to 
 make liberal extracts from it for the purpose of showing the basis 
 of Sabbath legislation in New York and other States which be- 
 long to this division. The statement of the case is as follows : 
 
 On the 5th day of July, 1860, the defendant, Mr. Lindenmuller, was 
 indicted in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of the City and County 
 of New York for an alleged misdemeanor in giving theatrical exhibi- 
 tions on Sabbath. The exhibitions were given in premises hired for 
 the purpose "of giving dramatic entertainments therein daily, including 
 Sundays," "During the week the receipts were not suflBcient to pay 
 the expenses, but on Sunday largely exceeded the expenses." "The 
 counsel for the defendant asked the court to direct the jury to acquit 
 
J 22 NEW YORK. 
 
 the defendant, on the ground that the act under which the indictment 
 was framed was unconstitutional and void. The Court refused so to 
 direct the jury, but on the contrary charged the jury that said act 
 was constitutional and valid. To which charge the counsel for the de- 
 fendant excepted. The jury rendered a verdict of "Guilty." 
 
 Before the Supreme Court the counsel for the plaintiff in error en- 
 deavored to show the unconstitutionality of the Sabbath law on the 
 following grounds: (1) "The law in question is in violation of sec- 
 tion 6, article 1 of the constitution of this State, which provides that 
 no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due 
 process of law." (2) "The statute in question is in violation of Sec- 
 tion 10 of Article 1, of the Constitution of the United States, which 
 provides that no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of 
 contracts." (3) "The statute in question is not valid on the ground 
 that it is a police regulation." (4) This statute is unconstitutional, 
 because it is in violation of Article 1, Section 3, of the Constitution 
 of the State of New York, which provides that 'The free exercise and 
 enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination 
 or preference, shall for ever be allowed in this State to all mankind.' 
 'The effect of this statute is to discriminate in favor of those who keep 
 the first, in contradistinction to those who keep the seventh day of 
 the week. This statute cannot be successfully maintained on the 
 ground that Christianity is a part of the common law of the State, 
 and therefore the Legislature has a right to enact laws for its due 
 observance. Christianity is not a part of the common law of this 
 country, there being here no union of Church and State as in England.' 
 
 The extracts are stifficient to show on what grounds it v/as 
 •sotight to have the law declared nnconstittttional. 
 
 Judge Allen in delivering the opinion of the court said : 
 "The constitutionality of the law under which Lindenmuller was 
 indicted and convicted does not depend upon the question whether or 
 not Christianity is a part of the common law of this State. Were that 
 the only question involved, it would not be difficult to show that it 
 was so, in a qualified sense — not to the extent that would authorize a 
 compulsory conformity in faith and practice, to the creed and formula 
 of worship of any sect or denomination, or even in those matters of 
 doctrine and worship common to all denominations styling themselves 
 Christian, but to the extent that entitles the Christian religion and its 
 ordinances to^respect and protection, as the acknowledged religion of 
 the people, /individual consciences may not be enforced; but men of 
 every opinion and creed may be restrained from acts which interfere 
 with Christian worship, and which tend to revile religion and bring it 
 into contempt./The belief of no man can be constrained, and the proper 
 •expression of religious belief is guaranteed to all; but this right, like 
 every other right, must be exercised with strict regard to the equal 
 
NEW YORK. 123 
 
 rights of others; and when religious belief or unbelief leads to acts 
 which interfere with religious worship, and rights of conscience of 
 those who represent the religion of the country, as established not 
 by law, but by the consent and usage of the community, and existing 
 before the organization of the governments, their acts may be re- 
 strained by legislation, even if they are not indictable at common law. 
 Christianity is not the legal religion of the State, as established by 
 law. If it were, it would be a civil or political institution, which it 
 is not; but this is not inconsistent with the idea that it is in fact, and 
 ever has been, the religion of the people. This fact is every where 
 prominent in all our civil and political history, and has been, from 
 the first, recognized and acted upon by the people, as well as by Con- 
 stitutional Conventions." 
 
 The judge next stated that Christianity is part of the common 
 law of England, and that that common law, as it was in force when 
 the constitution of 1776-1777 was adopted, continued to be the common 
 law of the State, except such parts of it as were repugnant to the con- 
 stitution. That the Sabbath law is not repugnant to that constitution 
 or any that has been adopted since, he proceeded to show: "It would 
 be strange that a people. Christian in doctrine and worship, many of 
 whom or whose forefathers had sought these shores for the privilege 
 of worshipping God in simplicity and purity of faith, and who regarded 
 religion as the basis of their civil liberty, and the foundation of 
 their rights, should, in their zeal to secure to all the freedom of con- 
 science which they valued so highly, solemnly repudiate and put be- 
 yond the pale of the law, the religion which was dear to them as life, 
 and dethrone the God who, they openly and avowedly professed to be- 
 lieve, had been their protector and guide as a people." 
 
 The judge then states that the Declaration of Independence was 
 prefixed as a part of the Constitution of 1777, and that in that docu- 
 ment there is an appeal "to the Supreme Judge of the World," and 
 an expression of "firm reliance on the protection of Divine Provi- 
 dence." Every constitution of the State since framed contains an ac- 
 knowledgment of Almighty God. The opinion then proceeds: "The 
 several constitutional conventions also recognize the Christian relig- 
 ion as the religion of the State, by opening their daily sessions with 
 prayer, by themselves observing the Christian Sabbath, and by except- 
 ing that day from the time allowed to the governor for returning bills 
 to the Legislature. . . . They did, therefore, prohibit the establish- 
 ment of a State religion, with its enabling and disabling statutes, its 
 test oaths and ecclesiastical courts, and all the pains and penalties of 
 nonconformity, which are only snares to the conscience, and every 
 man is left free to worship God according to the dictates of his own 
 conscience, or not to worship him at all as he pleases. But 
 they did not suppose they had abolished the Sabbath as a 
 day of rest for all, and of Christian worship for those who were dis- 
 
124 ^EW YORK. 
 
 posed to engage in it, or had deprived themselves of the power to pro- 
 tect their God from blasphemy and revilings, or their religious wor- 
 ship from unseemly interruptions. Compulsory worship of God in 
 any form is prohibited, and every man's opinion on matters of relig- 
 ion, as in other matters, is beyond the reach of law. No man can be 
 compelled to perform any act as a duty to God; but this liberty of 
 conscience in matters of faith and practice is entirely consistent with 
 the existence, in fact, of the Christian religion, entitled to and enjoy- 
 ing the protection of law as the I'eligion of the people of the State, 
 and as furnishing the best sanctions of moral and social obligations. 
 The public peace and public welfare are greatly dependent upon the 
 protection of the religion of the country, and the preventing or pun- 
 ishing of offenses against it, and acts wantonly committed subversive- 
 of it." 
 
 He then shows that previous to the Constitutional Convention of 
 1821, courts had declared Christianity to be part of the common law. 
 An amendment was proposed to the Constitution of the State "to the 
 effect that the judiciary should not declare any particular religion ta 
 be the law of the land." This amendment was rejected, the majority 
 holding "that the Christian religion was engrafted upon the law, and 
 entitled to protection as the basis of our morals and the strength of 
 our government. "Within the principles of the decision of the Peo- 
 ple V. Ruggles, as thus interpreted and approved and made a part of 
 the fundamental law of the land by the rejection of the proposed 
 amendment, every act done maliciously, tending to bring religion into 
 contempt, may be punished at common law, and the Christian Sab- 
 bath, as one of the institutions of that religion, may be protected from 
 desecration by such laws as the legislature, in their wisdom, may 
 deem necessary to secure to the community the privilege of undis- 
 turbed worship, and to the day itself that outward respect and ob- 
 servance which maj be deemed essential to the peace and good order 
 of society, and to preserve religion and its ordinances from open revil- 
 ing and contempt — and this not as a duty to God, but as a duty to so- 
 ciety and to the State. 
 
 "But as a civil and political institution, the establishment and 
 regulation of a Sabbath is within the just powers of the civil govern- 
 ment. With us, the Sabbath, as a civil institution, is older than the 
 government. The framers of the first Constitution found it in exist- 
 ence; they recognized it in their acts, and they, did not abolish it 
 or alter it, or lessen its sanctions or the obligations of the people ta 
 observe it." But if this had not been so, the civil government might 
 have established it. It is a law of our nature that one day in seven 
 must be observed as a day of relaxation and refreshment, if not for 
 
 public worship The Christian Sabbath is then one of the civil 
 
 institutions of the State, and to which the business and duties of life 
 are, by the common law, m.ade to conform and adapt themselves. The 
 
NEW YORK. 125 
 
 .•same cannot be said of the Jewish Sabbath, or the day observed by 
 the followers of any other religion." "The existence of the Sabbath 
 •day as a civil institution being conceded, as it must be, the right of 
 ■the legislature to control and regulate it and its observances is a 
 necessary sequence." 
 
 "The act complained of here compels no religious observance, and 
 •offenses against it are punishable not as sins against God, but as in- 
 jurious to and having a malignant influence on society." 
 
 It should be stated that the Court of Appeals, not the Su- 
 preme Court, is the highest court in New York, but the decision 
 in this case was expressly approved in Neuendorff v. Duryea (69 
 N. Y. 557), and was referred to as one "which has never been 
 cjuestioned in a court of higher or equal authority," and "as de- 
 claring the law of this State." In the case of the People v. Hav- 
 nor (149, N. Y. 195, 1896), it was referred to as the leading case 
 upon the subject in which Judge Allen discussed the common 
 law as well as legislation affecting the Sabbath with great force 
 and clearness. 
 
 In People v. Dennin, the Supreme Court gave an interpretation of 
 the law which was afterwards controverted by the Court of Appeals. 
 Dennin had been convicted of Sabbath-breaking by the Court of Ses- 
 sions of Queens County. The act charged was playing ball on private 
 grounds. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. This Court 
 held that Section 265 prohibiting "all shooting, hunting, fishing, 
 playing, etc., upon the first day of- the week," is to be interpreted by 
 Section 259, which declares that the law prohibits the doing on that 
 day of acts "which are serious interruptions of the repose and re- 
 ligious liberty of the community. It was further declared that "The 
 essential character of the crime was wanting. There was nothing to 
 disturb the repose of the community." (35 Hun. 327, 1885.) 
 
 In People v. Mosos the Court of Appeals, the highest court in tW 
 State, afllrmed the constitutionality of the law. Moses had been con- 
 victed of Sabbath-breaking in a court held by a Justice of the Peacft 
 in Orange County. The conviction was affirmed upon appeal to the 
 Court of Sessions of that county. Appeal was taken to the Supreme 
 Court, which also affirmed the conviction. Moses next appealed to the 
 Court of Appeals. The act claimed to be a violation of the law was 
 fishing from a boat in a pond in view of the public highways and 
 private residences. His plea was that the pond was private property, 
 belonging to a club of which he was a member, and that his acts were 
 not, therefore, public, and did not constitute "serious interruption of 
 the repose and religious liberty of the community." 
 
 '"he court, in upholding the law, said, "The Christian Sabbath is 
 •one of the civil institutions of the State, and that the legislature for 
 
126 ^EW YORK. 
 
 the purpose of promoting the moral and physical well-being of the peo- 
 ple, and the peace, quiet and good order of society, has authority to 
 regulate its observance, and prevent its desecration by any appropri- 
 ate legislation is unquestioned." 
 
 The plea set up by Moses that the pond being private property, 
 the act was private and therefore not a violation of the law, was dis- 
 posed of by quoting the law and showing that some acts are pi'ohibitecl 
 on Sabbath altogether, and one of these is fishing. "That is absolutely 
 prohibited on Sunday everywhere and under all circumstances," saici 
 the Court. 
 
 In announcing this opinion occasion was taken to declare the 
 opinion in the case of People v. Dennin incorrect. In that case it was 
 held that playing ball in private grounds on the Sabbath, does not 
 constitute a violation of the statute. But the Court of Appeals de- 
 clared that it is condemned by the principles which lie at the bottom 
 of the Sunday laws. (140 N. Y. 214, 1893.) 
 
 In People v. Havnor, the constittttionality of the "Act 
 to regulate barbering on Sunday" was involved. The plea of 
 the defendant was that it deprived him of liberty by preventing 
 him from carrying on a lawful occupation as he wished, and also 
 of his property by preventing the free use of his premises and 
 tools. In sustaining the law the Court of Appeals said : 
 
 "During the history of our State many laws have been passed 
 which, to some extent, have interfered with the right to liberty and 
 property, but their accord with the Constitution has seldom been ques- 
 tioned, and when questioned, has been generally sustained." The 
 power of taxation and the right to preserve the public health and mor- 
 als, to confine the insane and those afflicted with contagious diseases, 
 are here mentioned. "The sanction for these apparent trespasses 
 upon private rights is found in the principle that every man's liberty 
 and property are, to some extent, subject to the general welfare, as 
 each person's interest is presumed to be promoted by that which pro- 
 motes the interest of all. The inconvenience to some is not 
 
 regarded as an argument against the constitutionality of the statute,, 
 as that is an incident to all general laws. Sunday statutes have been 
 sustained as constitutional almost without exception, the most notable 
 instance to the contrary. Ex parte Nezvman (9 Cal. 502), decided by a 
 divided court in an early day in California, having been subsequently 
 overruled by the courts of that State 
 
 "While works of charity and necessity have usually been excepted 
 from the effect of laws relating to the Sabbath, and sometimes, also, 
 those persons who keep another day of the week, still quiet pursuits 
 have not, even when they can be carried on without the labor of 
 others, because general respect and observance of the day, as far as 
 practicable, have been deemed essential to the interest of the public. 
 
TEXAS. 127 
 
 including as a part thereof tliose who prefer not to keep the day, a§ 
 their health and morals are entitled to protection, even against their 
 will, the same as those of any other class in the community." (149 
 N. Y. 195, 1896.) 
 
 Sunday concerts and lectures are lawful, but to sell refreshments 
 and exhibit curiosities in connection with them is not permitted. 
 (Koster v. Board of Police.) 
 
 A person who by means of false representations obtains the goods 
 or property of another cannot escape liability on the plea that the 
 wrong was done on the Sabbath. (O'Shea v. Kohn, 33 Hun. 114, 1884.) 
 
 The act forbidding barbering on the Lord's day is constitutional. 
 (People V. Buttling, 13 Misc. 587.) 
 
 Were it not for the ntimerons exceptions, incltiding the sale 
 of soda water, ice cream, tobacco, newspapers, etc., this would 
 be an admirable law. The jtidicial opinions are tmexcelled. 
 
 TEXAS. (1896.) 
 
 "Sunda}- Laws" is the title of Chapter 2 of Title 7 of the 
 Criminal Code of Texas. It is as follows : 
 
 "196. Working on Sunday. — Any person who shall hereafter 
 labor, or compel, force, or oblige his employees, workmen, or appren- 
 tices to labor, on Sunday, or any person who shall hereafter hunt game 
 of any kind whatsoever on Sunday within one-half mile of any church, 
 schoolhouse or private residence, shall be fined not less than ten nor 
 more than fifty dollars." 
 
 "197. The preceding article shall not apply to household duties, 
 works of necessity or charity; nor to necessary work on farms or plan- 
 tations in order to prevent the loss of any crop; nor to the running 
 of steam-boats and other water crafts, rail cars, wagon trains, com- 
 mon carriers, nor to the delivery of goods by them or the receiving 
 or storing of said goods by the parties, or their agents to v/hom said 
 goods are delivered; nor to stages carrying the United States' mail or 
 passengers; nor to founderies, sugar mills, or herders who have a 
 herd of stock actually gathered and under herd ; nor to persons travel- 
 ling: nor to ferrymen, or keepers of toll bridges; keepers of hotels, 
 boarding houses, and restaurants, and their servants; nor to keepers of 
 livery stables and their servants; nor to any person who conscienti- 
 ously believes that the seventh or any other day of the week ought to 
 be observed as the Sabbath, and who actually refrains from business 
 and labor on that day for religious reasons. 
 
 "198. Any person who shall run or be engaged In running any 
 horse race, or who shall permit, or allow the use of any nine or ten- 
 pin alley, or who shall be engaged in match-shooting, or any species 
 of gaming 'for money or other consideration, within the limits of anv 
 
328 
 
 TEXAS. 
 
 city or town on Sunday, shall be fined not less than twenty nor more 
 than fifty dollars. 
 
 "199. Any merchant, grocer, or dealer in wares or merchandise, 
 •or trader in any business whatsoever, or the proprietor of any place 
 of public amusement, or the agent or employee of any such person, 
 who shall sell or barter, or permit his place of business or place of 
 public amusement to be open for the purpose of traffic or public 
 amusement, on Sunday, shall be fined not less than twenty nor more 
 than fifty dollars. The term, place of public amusement, shall be con- 
 strued to mean circuses, theaters, variety theaters and such other 
 amusements as are exhibited and for which an admission fee is 
 charged; and shall also include dances at disorderly houses, low dives, 
 and places of like character, with or without fees for admission." 
 (Vol. 1, pp. 84, 85.) 
 
 Article 391 gives city councils the right to close saloons and all 
 places where liquors are sold, and places of amusement and business, 
 on Sabbath. 
 
 Article 1184 says, "No civil suit shall be commenced, nor shall 
 ;any process be served on Sunday." 
 
 Article 3544 makes it the duty of the chaplains of penitentiaries 
 "to preach once every Sunday to convicts" and "to inculcate in them 
 sound principles of religion and morality. 
 
 Articles 3560 and 3591 declare that no labor shall be exacted of 
 ■convicts on Sabbath. 
 
 The constitutionality of Sabbath laws in Texas was passed 
 upon by the Supreme Court of that .State in 1867. The follow- 
 ing extracts from the Report in the case of Gabel v. Houston are 
 instructive. 
 
 "Peter Gabel was a lager-beer distiller and seller of the beverage 
 in the city of Houston. Peter partook of the notion, quite prevalent 
 among a large and influential class all over the United States, that 
 whatever may be lawfully done on week days may be done on Sun- 
 days; and that all laws restricting the vending of liquors and other 
 drinks on Sundays, and drinking and jollying over them, are infringe- 
 ments upon liberty and natural right; that they violate the rights of 
 conscience and religion; and that such laws are an infraction of the 
 Constitution of the United States and of the State, and are void." 
 The City of Houston had passed the following ordinance: "If 
 -any person or persons shall, on Sunday, in any public house, 
 room, building, or enclosure, or in any storehouse or bar- 
 room, in said city, sell, or furnish for use, any spirituous, 
 vinous, or malt liquors of any kind, such person shall be deemed guilty 
 ■of a misdemeanor, and shall pay a fine of not less than 
 $20, nor more than $50 for each and every such offense, to be recovered 
 with costs, as in case of other breaches of the city ordinances." Under 
 
TEXAS. 129 
 
 this ordinance Mr. Gabel was convicted. The case was first tried be- 
 fore the Mayor and recorder, as justices of the peace, then before the 
 district court and finally before the Supreme Court. Mr. Gabel was 
 found guilty and the constitutionality of the ordinance was upheld. 
 The Supreme Court said: "It will not be denied that such an ordin- 
 ance conduces to the good order and tranquility of a city when it en- 
 forces obedience to the rules of sobriety and decency within its limits, 
 -even more rigorously upon Sunday than other days; for the people, 
 from custom if not from law, desist upon that day from labor, and ob- 
 serve it as a day of rest, and, if tempted with the presence of the 
 grog-shop vender of ardent spirits and malt liquors, may fall into the 
 vice of intoxication, and consequent riots, and breaches of the peace, 
 and other outlawry, and greatly disturb the peace and tranquility of 
 the orderly and well-disposed inhabitants of the city upon that day, 
 which should be kept holy, free from vice and worldly pursuits. 
 
 "The Constitution of the Republic of Texas, under which this 
 charter v/as granted, reads as follows, to wit: 'No preference shall be 
 given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship over 
 another, but every person shall be permitted to worship God according 
 to the dictates of his own conscience." 
 
 "Section 4. Article 1, of the State Constitution of 1845, reads as 
 follows, viz.: 'All men have a natural and indefeasible right to wor- 
 ship God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man 
 shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, 
 or to maintain any ministry, against his consent; no human authority 
 ought in any case whatever to control or interfere with the right of 
 conscience in matters of religion; and no preference shall ever be 
 given by law to any religious societies or mode of worship. But it 
 shall be the duty of the legislature to pass such laws as may be nec- 
 essary to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable en- 
 joyment in their own mode of public worship.' 
 
 "We are equally well satisfied that the ordinance complained of 
 is not obnoxious to either of these constitutional provisions, but, in 
 fact, has the effect to protect the inhabitants of Houston in the un- 
 molested enjoyment of these religious privileges, secured by these 
 sections of the Constitution of the Republic and State. 
 
 "That all people of this country shall have the right to worship 
 God according to the dictates of their own consciences, or not at all, 
 if they prefer, and that the government shall not establish any re- 
 ligion for the people to obey, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, ap- 
 pears to be now the settled American doctrine, well established in the 
 organic law of the nation and the States. None here shall be com- 
 pelled to observe the Jewish, Mohammedan, Catholic, or Protestant 
 form of religion, or to embrace any at all. All are free to embrace any 
 religious denomination, civilized or pagan, that his judgment or taste 
 may dictate as the best or preferable for him. 
 
I30 TEXAS. 
 
 "When we consider the attributes of the Diety and of future re- 
 wards and punishments, and the temporal welfare of societj', govern- 
 ment can hardly consider itself entirely free from the fostering care 
 and protection of religion, as connected with the personal, social, and 
 domestic virtues of the people: but to what extent government may 
 go in the support and protection of religion, with safety and propriety,, 
 may be a subject of much contrariety of opinion with statesman and 
 publicists. 
 
 "The vast majority of our people profess a belief in the Christian 
 religion, and its existence has been recognized by the constitution 
 framed by them. The followers of that faith have from its earliest 
 existence and foundation regarded and kept Sunday as a day of rest, 
 free from labor and devoted to religious worship. And those not at- 
 tached to any religious denomination have habitually kept that day as- 
 one of rest from secular pursuits ; and its observance, as a day of rest 
 and holy, has for centuries become more than habit or custom; it has 
 become a sentinent, engrafted into our very social organism, to be ob- 
 served and respected by all— without the sanction of law or decrees 
 of courts. And, as a civil regulation, it has been considered import- 
 ant for the physical well-being of society that Sunday be observed a» 
 a day of rest from labor, in order that the mind and body may repose,, 
 that the former may recover or retain its wonted elasticity and vigor, 
 and the latter may recuperate and be prepared for more arduous and 
 protracted exertions in manual labor. And in this view the observ- 
 ance of Sunday, by a suspension of all secular pursuits, may, with 
 great propriety, be enforced by civil law. 
 
 "The observance of Sunday we believe essential to a full enjoy- 
 ment of religious exercises by the various denominations, m the spirit 
 of the Constitution of the State quoted above. How could a religious 
 set of people worship in a city, crowded with a busy population, and 
 in the midst of the confusion, noise and bustle of worldly business, 
 and the practices deemed by them unholy, and a sacrilegious desecra- 
 tion of that holy day? 
 
 "The right to worship God according to the dictation of the consci- 
 ence has not at all been interrupted; nor is it enjoined upon any in- 
 habitant of the city to attend the religious exercises of any denomina- 
 tion; and he may decline to attend any, and amuse himself with the- 
 metaphysical reflections and deductions of the infidel. He is not re- 
 quired to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain 
 any ministry, directly or indirectly, contrary to his conscience. His 
 rights of conscience, his religious principles, and practices under 
 them, are not at all infringed or impaired; nor does the ordinance pre- 
 tend to give any preference to any religion or mode of worship." "It 
 does prevent him from following a tippling occupation in the city on 
 Sunday, by which crowds of persons may be congregated at a public 
 house, and, under the influence of intoxication, may commit riots and 
 
VERMONT. 131 
 
 breaches of the peace, to the great annoyance of others, wHo may feel 
 it their religious duty to desist from labor, attend worship, and keep 
 the day holy; and we see a propriety and due respect for the senti- 
 ments or customs of our people manifested in the rule that compels 
 a cessation from labor on Sunday, in order that not only man and 
 beast may recuperate, and be restored to health and mental and phy- 
 sical vigor, but that those who, in good faith, may desire to keep that 
 day holy for the worship of God may remain undisturbed in the exer- 
 cise of their religious duties: and any law that tends to this result 
 cannot be considered repugnant to the Constitution." (29 Texas, 335.) 
 
 Again in 1888, in the case of Ex Parte Sundstrom before the Court 
 of Appeals, the constitutionality of the law was upheld. (25 App. 133.) 
 
 In the case of Eisner v. The State, the Supreme Court said: "The 
 object of the legislature was to forbid all secular employments on the 
 Sabbath not excepted in the act under which the defendant is indicted. 
 The disregard of the Sabbath, the refusal to recognize it as a day 
 sanctified to holy purposes, constitutes the offense. The particular 
 act alleged is no offense, but becomes so only when done on the Sab- 
 bath. (30 Texas, 524.) 
 
 The proper constrtiction of the Sabbath law was passed upon 
 by the Cotirt of Appeals in 1880. (8 Texas Cotirt of Ap. 313, 
 Albrecht v. the State.) 
 
 "The obvious intention of the legislature, as manifested in Art. 
 186, of the Penal Code, was to prevent altogether the barter and sale 
 of merchandise on Sunday, and to prohibit all merchants, grocers, 
 dealers in wares or merchandise, or traders in any lawful business 
 whatever, from desecrating the Sabbath, and distracting with their 
 avocations the peace and quiet of other portions of the community, 
 who might desire, fi'om religious or other considerations, to devote 
 the day to the worship of God, and to entire rest from their daily em- 
 ployments." 
 
 No action can be maintained for a deceit practiced in an exchange 
 of horses on the Lord's day, because the plaintiff cannot prove the de- 
 ceit without showing the terms of the illegal contract in which he 
 participated. 
 
 The law of this State is much weakened by some of the ex- 
 ceptions in Section 197. It is highly gratifying, however, to 
 find the Supreme Court upholding the law on the ground that 
 Christianity is part of the common law. 
 
 VERMONT. (1894.) 
 
 The following Sections of Chapter 225, are entitled "Sab- 
 bath-Breakinsr:'' 
 
332 VERMONT. 
 
 "5140. Any person who between twelve o'clock Saturday night and 
 twelve o'clock the following Sunday night, exercises any business or 
 employment, except such only as works of necessity and charity, or 
 holds, or resorts to any ball or dance, or uses or exercises any game, 
 sport or play, or resorts to any house of entertainment for amusement 
 ■or recreation, shall be fined not more than two dollars. 
 
 "5141. The railroad commissioners may authorize the running 
 upon any railroad of such through trains on Sunday as, in the opinion 
 of the board, the public necessity and convenience may require, hav- 
 ing regard to the due observance of the day. 
 
 "5142. A person who hunts, shoots or pursues, takes or kills wild 
 game or other birds or animals, or discharges fire arms, except in the 
 just defense of person or property or in the performance of military or 
 police duty, on Sunday, shall be fined ten dollars, one-half to go to the 
 person who makes the complaint and one-half to the State. 
 
 Serving a process on Sabbath is illegal except in case of necessity. 
 The following acts were passed by the General Assembly of the State 
 of Vermont, 1904 : 
 
 "The open season for hunting deer in this State shall be the last 
 week in October of each year containing six working days, Sundays 
 excepted. This act shall apply to both resident and non-resident deer 
 hunters. 
 
 "A person who hunts, shoots or pursues, takes or kills wild game or 
 other birds or animals, or discharges firearms, except in the just defense 
 of person or property, or in performance of military or police duty, on 
 Sunday, shall be fined not less than ten or more than one hundred 
 dollars, or be imprisoned not more than two months." 
 
 In the case of Lyon v. Strong, the Supreme Court of Ver- 
 mont in 1834, gave a deliverance as to the ground of the Sab- 
 bath law from which we quote as follows : 
 
 "Aware of the benefits to be derived from stated periods of rest 
 from manual labor, of the importance of having the same day ob- 
 served by all, recognizing that every denomination of Christians among 
 them regarded the Sabbath as a day set apart for moral and religious 
 duties, they (the legislature) determined that every one should be pro- 
 tected in the enjoyment of his religious privileges and in the perform- 
 ance of his religious duties, and have made provisions that those who 
 are thus disposed may on that day perform those great and necessary 
 duties which they believe are required of them, without disturbance 
 from the secular labor of others; and further, that all, whether high 
 or low, prisoner or free, master or servant, shall be permitted to rest, 
 and that none shall compel them to labor on that day; and leist through 
 avarice or cupidity, any one should be disposed so to do, they have en- 
 acted that the day shall be observed as a day of rest from secular la- 
 bor and employment, except such as necessity and acts of charity shall 
 require." (6 Vt. 219.) 
 
VEKMOXT. 133 
 
 The constitutionality of the law seems never to have been 
 questioned before the Courts, but in a number of cases involv- 
 ing the construction of the law the ground of such legislation has 
 been pretty thoroughly canvassed. In 1847, ^^'i the case of 
 Adams v. Gray this was done by Judge Redfiield in an elaborate, 
 but not altogether satisfactory opinion. In this case a horse- 
 trade had been made by the litigants on Sabbath in the State 
 of New Hampshire. The Sabbath laws of the two States were 
 very similar. Two very important questions were considered. 
 First, whether the new Hampshire law should be regarded in de- 
 ciding the case, and second if it is not to be regarded, should 
 the contract be declared illegal on general principles of public 
 policy. Both (piestions were answered in the negative. The 
 Court said : 
 
 "In this State, full Immunity for all religions, and no religion, is 
 equally given by the fundamental law of the State. No man can be 
 abridged of his perfect liberty in that respect. And while this does 
 not forbid the legislature from passing general laws against blasphemy, 
 the desecration of the Lord's day, and the disturbance of public wor- 
 ship, it does, impliedly at least, forbid the adoption of any law, which 
 is not necessary for the quiet enjoyment of religious feeling and relig- 
 ious worship. So that all laws which it is competent for the legisla- 
 ture to adopt, must have reference solely to preventing the disturbance 
 of our citizens in their religious feelings and devotions. Beyond this, 
 the constitution of the State absolutely prohibits any law. How, then, 
 can it be said, that a contract made out of the State, upon Sunday, is 
 any violation of the religious feelings or any infringement of the re- 
 ligious devotions of our citizens, any more than if made upon any oth- 
 er day? 
 
 "There is only one other ground, upon which, it seems to me, it 
 could be seriously contended, that such a contract is immoral; that is, 
 that its enforcement here tends to shock the moral sense of the com- 
 munity. I have no doubt such is the fact in regard to a portion of the 
 most serious minded, earnest, and strenuously religious of our citizens. 
 And no one can doubt, that the feeling of so considerable and influen- 
 tial a portion of the citizens of the State is entitled to the highest con- 
 sideration. But in making inquiry into the state of the moral feeling 
 of the whole community, we must not forget that, upon religious mat- 
 ters, it is almost infinitesmally divided. And before we could deter- 
 mine that any given cause .shocked ihs moral feeling of the commun- 
 ity, we must be able to find but one pervading feeling upon that sub- 
 ject, — so much so that a contrary feeling in an individual would denom- 
 inate him either insane, or diseased in his moral perceptions. Now no- 
 thing is more absurd, to rny mind, than to argue the existence of any 
 
134 
 
 VERMONT. 
 
 such universal moral sentiment, in regard to the observance of Sunday. 
 It is in no just sense a moral sentiment to all, which impels us to the 
 observance of Sunday, for religious purposes, more than any other day. 
 It Is but education and habit m the main, certainly. Moral feeling 
 might dictate the devotion of a portion of our time to religious rites 
 and solemnities, but could never indicate any particular time above all 
 others. 
 
 "But this will be best determined by the actual state of opinions 
 among us, upon this subject. Some of our citizens are atheists, per- 
 haps; a considerable number deists, or rationalists; and among 
 Christians there is an almost infinite diversity of opinion in regard to 
 this subject. The Irish Catholic, who may have become a denizen of 
 the Republic, regards St. Patrick's day, perhaps, as the most sacred in 
 the calendar. The French Catholic is willing to labor every day in the 
 year, almost, except on St. Peter's day. If he is well informed, and 
 conscientious, he will hardly forget Good Friday, or Christmas, or Ash- 
 Wednesday. The same is true, in regard to these latter days, with the 
 consistent members of the Church of England, or of the Lutheran 
 Church, or of the Greek Church, if any such there be among us. Now 
 all these regard Sunday; but not as more sacred than some other days. 
 It is but in commemoration of the weekly recurrence of the Lord's 
 day, the Resurrection. But Easter-day, which is the annual festival 
 of the Lord's day, is truly the great day of the feast, — the Sunday of 
 Sundays, the crowning festival of the year! And this, with Good-Fri- 
 day, Ash-Wednesday, Christmas, and some few other prominent fasts 
 and festivals, is most religiously observed in all the ancient Churches; 
 and in all the Lutheran Churches, — which embrace Holland, Sweden 
 and Denmark, Prussia and Germany, so far as they are Protestant; — 
 and in the English Church and all its branches. And so are all the 
 Sundays in the year, but with far less solemnity than the greater fasts 
 and festivals above named. In addition to this, it must be remembered 
 that we have among us some Jews, perhaps, and some Seventh-day 
 Baptists, who do not regard Sunday at all; and many of the Friends, 
 who regard all days alike. This may all be very unwise or very un- 
 reasonable, in the estimation of some; but it is none the less true; and 
 we must take things as they are. How then, can it be said, that to 
 enforce a contract made upon Sunday, out of the State is shocking to 
 the moral sense of the community?" 
 
 As to the illegality of contracts made on Sabbath the Court said: 
 "There is a most urgent necessity so to administer this rule in regard to 
 them, that it shall not be in the power of the reckless and irreligious 
 to circumvent and defraud the unwary, under the guise of the sacred- 
 ness of the time when their own injustice was perpetrated. We have 
 little doubt such practices have already been attempted in some cases, 
 and that it might become a not unfrequent resort of those who desired 
 to effectually cut off all remedy for their own fraud and dishonesty. 
 If the general rule of holding contracts, made upon Sunday, void, is. 
 
VIRGINIA. 135 
 
 also, to shield the contracting parties from the consequences of their 
 frauds, and to allow the dishonest and abandoned to retain whatever 
 they may be able to get possession of under such contracts, and the 
 same time release them from all liability upon their own contracts, 
 then the rule itself will be productive of infinite mischief and should be 
 discarded at once." (19 Vt. 358). 
 
 "It is well settled in this State," says the Supreme Court of Ver- 
 mont," whatever may be the decisions in other States— that the illeg- 
 ality which attacks to a contract executed on Sunday is not an illegal- 
 ity which enters into the subject matter or essence, of the contract, 
 and for that reason renders it void: that such contracts only being il- 
 legal on account of the day on which they are made, are capable of 
 ratification by any act which fairly recognizes them as existing con- 
 tracts, on a subsequent week day, like a promise to perform, or pay the 
 amount stipulated therein, or a part payment of the same." (51 Vt. 
 334). 
 
 The right to recovery for injuries received while traveling on 
 the Sabbath has been denied in the following cases : 
 
 "It has been repeatedly held in this State that if a person sustain 
 an injury by reason of an insufficency in the highway while such party 
 is travelling in violation of the statute, he cannot recover of the town 
 -or such injury." (53 Vt. 435.) 
 
 In Duran v. Insurance Company the Court held that when an ac- 
 cident policy which provides that the insurance money will not be paid 
 if the accident occur wholly or partly from violations of the law, the 
 insured cannot recover if he was injured while violating the Sabbath 
 law. (63 Vt. 437.) 
 
 It is not illegal since 1894 to travel on Sabbath. 
 The exception in favor of railroads made by the Statute of 
 Vermont is its weak point. The argument of the Supreme 
 Court in Adams v. Gray is vicious. The Lord's day holds a place 
 in the hearts of the people and in the customs of society that no 
 other day holds. The opinion, however, that people who de- 
 fraud and take shelter under the Sabbath law should not be al- 
 lowed to escape, should receive general approval. 
 
 VIRGINIA. (1904.) 
 
 Chapter 185 of the Statutes of Virginia is entitled, "Of Of- 
 fenses against Morality and Decency." The sections relating to 
 the Lord's day are entitled, "Violations of the Sabbath. How 
 punished," and are as follows : 
 
 "3799. If a person on a Sabbath day be found laboring at any trade 
 <or calling, or employ his apprentices or servants in labor or other busi- 
 
136 VTRGTNIA. 
 
 ness except in household or other work of necessity or charity, he shall 
 forfeit two dollars for each offeiise. Every day any servant or appren- 
 tice is so employed, shall constitute a distinct offense. 
 
 "From any judgment heretofore or hereafter rendered under this 
 section, the right of appeal shall lie to the defendant within ten days, 
 to the corporation or hustings court of the city, or to the circuit court 
 of the county wherein said judgment appealed from and when taken 
 shall he proceeded in as appeals in misdemeanor cases. 
 
 "3800. Exceptions as to the Jews.— The forfeiture, declared by the 
 preceding section, shall not be incurred by any person who conscienti- 
 ously believes that the seventh day of the week ought to be observed as 
 a Sabbath, and actually refrains from all secular business and labor on 
 that day, provided he does not compel an apprentice or servant, not of 
 his belief, to do secular work or business on a Sunday, and does not 
 on that day disturb any other person. 
 
 "3801. What transportation, etc., by railroads on Sunday prohib- 
 ited. — No railroad company, receiver, or trustee controlling or oper- 
 ating a railroad, shall, by any agent or employee, load, unload, run, or 
 transport upon such road on a Sunday, any car, train of cars, or loco- 
 motive, nor permit the same to be done by such agent or employee, 
 except where such cars, trains, or locomotives are used exclusively for 
 the relief of wrecked trains, or trains so disabled as to obstruct the 
 main track of the railroad; or for the transportation of the United 
 States mail; or for the transportation of passengers and their baggage; 
 or for the transportation of live stock; or for the transportation of 
 articles of such perishable nature as would be necessarily impaired in 
 value by one day's delay in their passage; Provided however, that if 
 it should be necessary to transport live stock or perishable articles on 
 a Sunday to an extent not sufficient to make a whole train-load, such 
 train-load may be made up with cars loaded with ordinary freight. 
 
 "3802. What time the word 'Sunday' in the preceding Section em- 
 braces. — The word "Sunday" in the preceding Section shall be con- 
 strued to embrace only that portion of the day between sunrise and 
 sunset; and trains in transitu having started prior to twelve o'clock 
 on Saturday night, may, in order to reach their terminus or shops of 
 the railroad, run until nine o'clock the following Sunday morning, but 
 not later." 
 
 The penalty for violating section 3801 is not less than a hundred 
 dollars for each offense, and it is a separate offense in each county or 
 corporation through which the train passes. 
 
 "3803a. No steamboat company shall by any agent or employee 
 load or unload on a Sunday any steamship or steamboat arriving at 
 any port or landing on the bays, rivers, or other waters of this State or 
 permit the same to be done by any such agent or employee except 
 where such steamship or steamboat is for the transportation of the 
 United States mail, or for the transportation of passengers and their 
 baggage, or for the transportation of through freight in transitu, or of 
 
VIRGINIA. 137 
 
 live stock, or of articles of such perishable nature as would be neces- 
 sarily impaired in value by one day's delay in their passage; provided, 
 that nothing in this act shall be construed as preventing any steam- 
 ship or steamboat arriving at any port or landing on the bays, rivers, 
 and on other waters of this State not its final point of destination from 
 unloading any and all freight intended for delivery at such intermedi- 
 ate port or landing or from loading and taking on any and all freight 
 intended for shipment from such intermediate port or landing to the 
 final destination of said steamship or steamboat." 
 
 The penalty is the same as in the case of railroads. 
 "3804. No bar-room, saloon, or other place for the sale of intoxi- 
 cating liquors shall be opened, and no spirituous, malt, or intoxicating 
 liquors shall be sold in any bar-room, restaurant, saloon, store, or other 
 place between twelve o'clock on any Saturday night and sunrise of the 
 succeeding Monday morning. 
 
 "Any person violating the provisions of this section shall upon 
 conviction, be fined not less than one hundred, nor more than five hun- 
 dred dollars, and the license of the place where the sale was so made 
 shall be revoked." (Vol. 2, p. 2033). 
 
 "To shoot or hunt any game in this State on Sunday" is unlaw- 
 ful. (Vol. 1, p. 1042, Sec. 2070a). 
 
 In Norfolk & Western R. R. Co. v. Commonwealth the Supreme 
 Court of Appeals handed down an opinion which but for an adverse 
 opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States in Hennington v. 
 (Jeorgia would have greatly weakened the railroad law which is al- 
 ready greatly impaired by its numerous provisions. The following 
 extracts will give a sufiiciently clear view of its character: 
 
 "A statute which forbids the running of interstate freight trains 
 between sunrise and sunset on a Sunday, is, by its necessary operation, 
 no matter what its professed object may be, a regulation of commerce. 
 At all events, it is an obstruction to interstate commerce which for the 
 purpose of the present case, amounts to the same thing; for, in any 
 view, it is an invasion of the exclusive domain of Congress, and, there- 
 fore, void. To say that the State may, in the exercise of her police 
 powers, enforce by statute observance of the Sabbath, not as a religious 
 duty, but as a day of rest, is no answer to the constitutional objection 
 here raised. The validity of such legislation, when not in conflict with 
 a higher law, is acknowledged by all, and its wisdom and propriety de- 
 nied by none — certainly not by this court. But when, in a case like the 
 present it contravenes the constitution of the United States, the latter 
 must prevail, because it is the 'supreme law' in all matters relating to 
 the regulation of interstate commerce." (88 Va. 95, 1892). 
 
 A similar case was before the same court in 189G involving the 
 question of hauling empty cars through the State to the coal mines on 
 the Sabbath. In this case it was held that hauling such cars is not 
 commerce and is therefore a violation of a constitutional law. In the- 
 opinion prepared by Judge Buchanan the court said: 
 
138 WEST VmOINIA. 
 
 "The experience of mankind lias shown the wisdom and necessity 
 of having at stated intervals a day of rest for man and beast from their 
 customary labors. It is necessary both for the physical and moral na- 
 ture of man. The government of the United States, as well as the gov- 
 -ernments of the States of the Union, recognizes this requirement for 
 rest in man's nature, and provides for it in their respective jurisdic- 
 tions." (93 Va. 749). 
 
 By making the penalty for violations of the law relating to 
 labor only two dollars the efficiency of the law is somewhat im- 
 paired. The railroad law makes a gap wide enough for almost 
 any train the companies might wish to run. The steamboat law 
 is equally faulty. 
 
 WKST VIRGINIA. (1899.) 
 
 Sections 16 and 17 of Chapter 149 of tlie West Virginia 
 Statutes treat of Sabbath-breaking. They are as follows: 
 
 "16. If a person on a Sabbath day, be found laboring at any trade 
 or calling, or employing his minor children, apprentices, or servants in 
 labor or other business, except in household or other work of necessity 
 or charity, he shall be fined not less than five dollars for each offense. 
 And every day any such minor child, or servant or apprentice is so 
 employed, shall constitute a distinct offense. And any person found 
 hunting, shooting, or carrying fire-arms on the Sabbath day, shall be 
 guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not less than five dollars. 
 
 "17. No forfeiture shall be incurred under the preceding section 
 for the transportation on Sunday of the mail, or of passengers and their 
 baggage, or for running any railroad train or steamboat on the Sab- 
 bath day, or for carrying fire-arms or shooting on that day, by any per- 
 son having the right to do so under the laws of the United States or of 
 this State; and no forfeiture for laboring on the Sabbath day shall be 
 incurred under the said section, by any person who conscientiously be- 
 Jieves that the seventh day of the week ought to be observed as a Sab- 
 bath and actually refrains from all secular business and labor on that 
 ■day, provided he does not compel an apprentice or servant not of his 
 belief to do secular work or business on Sunday, and does not on that 
 day disturb any other person in his observance of the same. And no 
 contract shall be deemed void because it is made on the Sabbath day." 
 (p. 974). 
 
 The following also treat of certain features of the question. 
 
 "No civil process or order shall be executed on Sunday, except i" 
 ■cases of persons escaping from custody, or where it may be especially 
 provided by law." (Ch 41, Sec. 15). 
 
 An attachment may be issued or executed on Sunday if oath be 
 made that the defendant is actually removing his effects on that day. 
 <Ch. 106, Sec. 8). 
 
WEi>T VIRGINIA. 139 
 
 Inquests on dead bodies may be held on the Sabbath. (Ch. 155, 
 -Sec. 11). 
 
 In the case of the State v. B. & O. R. R. Company, the basis 
 on which the Sabbath law rests was first of all set forth. The 
 railroad company had been indicted for hauling coal on Sabbath, 
 and judgment was rendered against it by the Circuit Court of 
 Mineral County. The case came before the Supreme Court of 
 Appeals on a writ of error. This court said : 
 
 "In construing our statute it would be our duty to give to it a 
 meaning consistent with our constitution, if its meaning was doubtful, 
 and such meaning could reasonably be attached to its language. Its 
 meaning is not however doubtful. It was obviously not intended by 
 our statute to enforce the observance of the Sabbath as a 
 religious duty. The Legislature obviously regarded it as 
 promotive of the mental, moral, and physical well-being of 
 men, that they should rest from their labors at stated intervals; 
 ^nd in this all experience shows they were right. If then rest is to be 
 enjoined as a matter of public policy at stated intervals, it is obvious 
 that public convenience would be much promoted by the community 
 generally resting on the same day; for otherwise each individual would 
 be much annoyed and hindered in finding that those, with whom he 
 had business to transact, were resting ou the day on which he was 
 working. The Legislature holding these views in selecting the particu- 
 lar day of rest doubtless selected Sunday because it was deemed a 
 •proper day of rest by a majority of our people who thought it a religi- 
 ous duty to rest on that day; and in selecting this day for these rea- 
 sons the Legislature acted wisely. The law requires that the day be ob- 
 served as a day of rest, not because it is a religious duty, but because 
 such observance promotes the physical, mental and moral well-being ol 
 the community; and Sunday is selected as this day of rest, because if 
 any other day had been named, it would have imposed unnecessarily on- 
 erous obligations on the community, inasmuch as many of them would 
 have rested on Sunday as a religious duty; and the requirement of an- 
 other to be" observed as a day of rest would have resulted in two days 
 being observed instead of one. and thus time would have been uneces- 
 sarily wasted. This I conceive is the main object of our law; but it is 
 not its only object. While I am thus resting on the Sabbath in obedi- 
 ence to law, it is right and reasonable that my rest should not be dis- 
 turbed by others. Such a disturbance by others of my rest is in its 
 nature a nuisance, which the law ought to punish, and Sabbath break- 
 ing has been frequently classed with nuisances and punished as such." 
 "If any portion of the community should regard it as their religioua 
 duty to rest on some other day than Sunday, and do so rest, they are 
 ■not required to rest on Sunday, as one-seventh of time is all that the 
 public good requires to be devoted to rest. But if you do not rest on 
 
I40 WISCONSIN. 
 
 Sunday, you must take care not to disturb those who do, and not to 
 compel others to work who should rest on that day. 
 
 "The obvious purpose of the law was not to enforce the perform- 
 ance of a religious or moral duty; for it expressly provides that this 
 supposed religious duty may be neglected by any one, ^■fho will rest 
 the required seventh part of his time." 
 
 "If these be correct views of the true meaning and purpose of the 
 act, it is obvious that there is no reason why its observance should not 
 be enforced against corporations, and why they should not be fined 
 according to the provisions of this act for employing their servants in 
 labor. The painishment inflicted is not because they in employing their 
 servants in labor on Sunday are violating the fourth commandment 
 or committing any immoral act, but because they are requiring their 
 servants to labor more than six-sevenths of their time; and this is re- 
 garded by the State as prejudicial to their well-being. The corporation 
 is therefore punished not for the violation of any social or moral obli- 
 gation, but simply because it is violating a positive law forbidding it 
 to employ its servants in labor on Sunday; or because it is annoying 
 others who are thus resting in obedience to law." 
 
 It should be stated in explanation of the last paragraph that it 
 was argued by Counsel for the Railroad Company, that the statute re- 
 quires the observance of the Sabbath day as a religious duty imposed up- 
 on us by God, and that as corporations can owe no deligious duty the 
 statute cannot be construed to extend to them. (15 W. Va. 362, 1S79.) 
 In 1SS7 the clause was added to the law excepting all railroad 
 trains and steamboats. 
 
 As to the proper construction of the statute, it has been held that 
 it is the province of the jury to determine under all the facts and cir- 
 cumstances of the case, whether the work charged to have been done 
 on Sabbath was or was not a work of necessity. Butchering an animal, 
 that had broken off one of it horns, on Sabbath for fear of fever is not 
 a work of necessity. (State v. Knight, 29 W. Va. 340). 
 
 The railroad law is the weak part of this legislation. The 
 judicial opinions are not above criticism. 
 
 WISCONSIN. (1898.) 
 
 Chapter 186 is entitled, "Offenses against Chastity, Mor- 
 ality, etc.," 'Violation of Sunday" is the sub-title of Section 4595> 
 relating to Sabbath-breaking. It is as follows : 
 
 "4595. Any person who shall keep open his shop, warehouse or 
 workhouse, or shall do any manner of labor, business or work, except 
 only works of necessity or charity, or be present at any dancing or 
 public diversion, show or entertainment, or take part in any sport, 
 game or play, on the first day of the week, shall be punished by fine 
 not exceeding ten dollars; and such day shall be understood to include 
 
wiscoysii^'. 141 
 
 the time between the midnight preceding and the midnight following 
 the said day and no civil process shall be served or executed on said 
 day." (Vol. 2, p. 2780.) 
 
 "Any person who conscientiously believes that the seventh or any 
 ■other day of the week, ought to be observed as the Sabbath, and who 
 actually refrains from secular business and labor on that day, may 
 perform secular labor and business on the first day of the week, unless 
 he shall wilfully disturb thereby some other person, or some religious 
 assembly on said day." (Vol. 2, p. 2782). 
 
 In 1879, Section 4276 which relates to legal notices was amended as 
 follows: "Any notice, advertisement, statement or publication, re- 
 quired by law or the order of any court, to be printed or published in 
 any newspaper, may be printed and published in a newspaper printed 
 on Sunday, and such printing and publishing shall be a lawful publica- 
 tion, and a full compliance with the order of the court or office order- 
 ing such publication, the same to all intents and purposes, as though 
 the same had been printed and published in a newspaper printed on a 
 secular day, etc." (p. 2640). 
 
 "No courts shall be open or transact any business on the first day 
 of the week." 
 
 No civil process can be served or executed on the first day Of the 
 ■week. 
 
 "In case of exigency, an injunction may be granted, and by direc- 
 tion of the court or judge, may be served on Sunday." 
 
 Magistrates are to preserve peace and order, and if necessary ar- 
 rest offenders on the Sabbath. 
 
 The opinions handed down by the Supreme Court of Wis- 
 consin are not numerous and do not consider the constitutional 
 principles involved. They relate chiefly to contracts made on the 
 Lord's day and to liability for damages for injuries received on 
 
 that day. 
 
 A contract or agreement made on the first day of the week is void 
 and will not be enforced in a court of law, but, "Where a contract, 
 otherwise valid, is void by reason of having been made on Sunday, . . . 
 . . .a subsequent promise to pay for the goods, made on any day other 
 than Sunday, is valid." (31 Wis. 252, 1872). 
 
 A town is not obliged to repair, on Sabbath day, a hole in the 
 highway caused by a rain on Saturday night. (33 Wis., 277, 1873). 
 
 A man who hired a wrecking machine for seven days was required 
 to pay for its use on Sabbath although he did not use it on that day. 
 If the contract had included its use on that day it would have been 
 void and could not have been enforced. But the court declared that 
 "the mere stipulation, that in computing the amount of the hire, Sun- 
 day should be reckoned as one day, does not necessarily contemplate 
 its use on that day and does not render the contract illegal." (37 Wis. 
 41, 1875). 
 
142 WYOMING. 
 
 If injuries are received while travelling on Sabbath the right to 
 recover is not affected by the fact that the injured party is travelling 
 for pleasure. "He does not thereby become an outlaw, but is as much 
 within the protection of the law, and is entitled to the same degree of 
 care, as though he had postponed his ride till the next day.' (Rnoulton 
 V. Milwaukee City Ry. Co.) 
 
 While a cattle drover was driving cattle across a bridge in the 
 town of Wauwatoso on Sabbath the bridge broke down and some of the 
 cattle were killed. In the damage suit which followed the Supreme 
 Court held that while the drover was violating the law and was liable 
 to a fine the accident happened because of the unsafe ouudiixon of the 
 bridge, and would have occurred had he been crossing ou say other 
 day, and that he was entitled to recover. (29 Wis. 21, 1871). 
 
 In Knox v. Clifford it was shown that "a note was actually made 
 and delivered on Sunday, but was dated on Saturday." It was claimed 
 that this rendered it void. The Supreme Court held that "Where a 
 party makes and puts in circulation a negotiable note purporting to 
 be made and bearing date on some secular day, he is estopped, as 
 against an innocent holder, from showing that it was actually exe- 
 cuted and delivered on Sunday." (38 Wis. 651, 1875.) 
 
 Loaning money on the Sabbath is business and is unlawful, and 
 the law will not lend its support to a claim founded on its own vio- 
 lation. (51 Wis. 46.) 
 
 Securing signatures to a petition relating to secular business on 
 the Lord's day is unlawful. (52 Wis. 320.) 
 
 A claim for damages in case of eviction cannot be based on profits 
 made in violation of the Sabbath law. (100 Wis. 414.) 
 
 A subscription for the building of a church made on the Sabbath 
 is valid. (113 Wis. 567.) 
 
 The statute making it lawful to publish legal notices in Sun- 
 day newspapers is a great injustice to those who do not read such 
 papers. With this exception the law of Wisconsin is good. 
 With very few exceptions the opinions of the courts are judicious 
 and give the law strong support. 
 
 WYOMING. (1899.) 
 
 Chapter 10, Division i, Title 20, of the Wyoming Statutes 
 is entitled "Sunday." It is as follows : 
 
 "2642. For the purposes of this chapter the first day of the week, 
 commonly called Sunday, shall begin with midnight Saturday and ter- 
 minate the following midnight. 
 
 "2643. Every person or persons, company or corporation, having 
 license to sell liquors under the laws of Wyoming, who shall keep 
 open, or suffer his or their agent or employee to keep open, his or their 
 
PORTO RICO. 143 
 
 place of business, or who shall sell, give away or dispose of, or per- 
 mit another to sell, give away or dispose of, on his or their premises, 
 any spirituous, malt, vinous or fermented liquors, or any mixtures of 
 any such liquors, on the first day of the week, commonly called Sun- 
 day, or upon any day upon which any general or special election is be- 
 ing held, shall be quilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, shall 
 be fined in any sum not less than twenty-five dollars, or more than one 
 hundred dollars, or imprisoned in the county jail noi to exceed three 
 months. 
 
 "2644. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, company 
 or corporation, to keep open any barber shop, store, shop or other 
 place of business for the transaction of business therein, upon the first 
 day of the week comrr'Only called Sunday; provided, this section shall 
 not apply to newspaper printing offices, railroads, telegraph compan- 
 ies, hotels, restaurants, drug stores, livery stables, news depots, farm- 
 ers, cattlemen and ranchmen, mechanics, furnaces or smelters, glass 
 works, electric light plants and gas works, the vendors of ice, milk, 
 fresh meat and bread, except as to the sale of liquors and cigars. Any 
 person, company or corporation who shall violate the provisions of 
 this section, shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in a sum of money 
 not less than twenty-five dollars, nor more than one hundred dollars, 
 for each offense." (p. 717.) 
 
 This law permits far more than it prohibits, and no cases 
 seem to have reached the Supreme Court. 
 
 PORTO RICO. (1902.) 
 
 The Sabbath law of Porto Rico is contained in Title XIX of 
 the Penal Code and is entitled "Sunday Closing.'' It is as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 "553. That every Sunday commercial and industrial establish- 
 ments, excepting public markets, pharmacies, bakeries, hotels, res- 
 taurants, cafes, and places where refreshments only are served, ex- 
 cepting also public and quasi-public utilities and works of emergency, 
 necessary to prevent unusual and serious financial loss, shall remain 
 closed and do no business whatever after twelve o'clock noon. This 
 prohibition shall not, however, extend to theaters and other places de- 
 voted exclusively to amusements or to charitable purposes; at all 
 such places it shall be lawful to work at any hour on Sunday, but only 
 in aid of such charitable purposes or amusements. 
 
 "554. The municipal council of any municipality may, by ordin- 
 ance, require commercial and industrial establishments, including 
 those excepted in Section 553, or any of them, to remain closed at all 
 hours on Sunday, excepting the works of emergency therein mentioned. 
 
 "555. In case of disorder on Sunday in any establishment herein 
 
.144 PORTO RICO. 
 
 excepted from the provisions hereof, or excepted in any municipal or- 
 dinance enacted under the authority hereof, the alcalde may order said 
 establishment to be closed forthwith during the remainder of the day 
 on which the disorder occurs; and in case of a repetition in the same 
 establishmentj of disorder on any other Sunday, the alcalde may di- 
 rect such establishment to be closed on Sunday for a period not ex- 
 ceeding three months; and in case of each subsequent offense in the 
 same establishment, the alcalde may order it to be closed on Sunday 
 for a period not exceeding one year." 
 
 ' Section 556 fixes the penalty at five to ten dollars for the first of- 
 fense, and from ten to twenty-five dollars for the second offense, (pp. 
 •612-614.) 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 STATES WHOSE SABBATH LAWS ARE INHERENTLY 
 
 WEAK. 
 
 In the fourth Hst of States are to be placed those whose laws 
 are inherently weak because the proliibitions are limited to a 
 few of the common violations of the sanctity of the Sabbath. In 
 some of the States of this class labor is not prohibited, in some 
 no mention is made of business, while in some nothing is prohib- 
 ited except such things as disturb congregations and families in 
 the religious observance of the day. In some of them there is 
 no prohibition of hunting and fishing. 
 
 COLORADO. (189 1.) 
 
 "Sunday worship" is the title of the sections of the Colorado 
 Code on the Sabbath question. They are as follows : 
 
 "1370. Any person who shall hereafter knowingly disturb the 
 peace and good order of society, by labor or amusement, on the first 
 day of the week, commonly called Sunday (works of necessity and 
 charity excepted), shall be fined, on conviction thereof, in any sum 
 not exceeding fifty dollars. (Vol. 1, p. 947.) 
 
 "1371. Whoever shall be guilty of any noise, rout or amusement 
 •on the first day of the week, called Sunday, whereby the peace of any 
 private family may be disturbed, or who shall, by a disorderly or im- 
 moral conduct, interrupt or disturb the meeting, processions or cere- 
 monies of any religious denomination, on either a Sunday or week- 
 day, such person so offending shall be deemed quilty of a misde- 
 meanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not ex- 
 •ceeding fifty dollars. (Vol. 1, p. 947.) 
 
 145 
 
146 COLORADO. 
 
 "1323. If any person shall be guilty of open lewdness, or other 
 notorious act of public indecency, tending to debauch the public 
 morals, or shall keep open any tippling or gaming house on the Sab- 
 bath day or night, or shall keep a lewd house, etc. ; every such person 
 shall, on conviction, be fined not exceeding one hundred dollars, or im- 
 prisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months. (Vol. 1, p. 
 932.) 
 
 1445 provides that prisoners sentenced to hard labor are not to- 
 work on Sabbath. 
 
 '•2597. That any person who conscientiously observes the seventh 
 day of the week, commonly called Saturday, as the Sabbath day, and 
 refrains from doing secular labor upon that day, shall not be required 
 to serve as a juror, or as a witness, on such day, if he or they shall 
 ask to be excused from such service." (Vol. 3, p. 726, L. '91.) 
 
 2718 provides that attachments to secure property may be issued 
 on Sabbath. Bills and notes due on Sabbath are payable on Saturday, 
 Sec. 265. County offices are not open on Sabbath. Sec. 930. 
 
 2840, after providing for licenses for theaters, circuses, and shows, 
 declares: "No person shall be allowed by virtue of any such license 
 to open any place of public amusement, such as a theater, circus or 
 show, on the Sabbath or Lord's day; but any person who shall so of- 
 fend on such day shall be fined in a sum not less than fifty nor more 
 than one hundred dollars, for every such offense." 
 
 A recent statute requires every saloon, bar or other place where 
 spirituous, vinous, malt or other liquors are kept, sold, bartered, ex- 
 changed or given away, to be closed from twelve o'clock on Saturday 
 night until six o'clock on Monday morning, and declares that no per- 
 son shall be permitted to be or remain in or around the same, except 
 those connected therewith. The penalty for violating this law is not 
 Isss than $100 nor more than $500. 
 
 The public courts hold no session on that day. Sec. 3511. When 
 Sabbath is the meeting day of the State Board of Canvassers, they 
 are to meet the next day. Sec. 1633. The State Library is not open 
 on the Sabbath. Sec. 2802. Nor the Supreme Court Library. Sec. 987, 
 Inmates of the State Reformatory are not to labor on Sabbath. Sec. 
 4174. Tax sales are not to be held on Sabbath. Sec. 3888. 
 
 In 1893 it was enacted "That it shall be a misdemeanor for any 
 person to carry on the business of barbering on Sunday in any city 
 of the first or second class, whether incorporated by general law or 
 special charter, in the State of Colorado. The penalty is from $25 to 
 $50 or imprisonment from fifteen to thirty days, or both. (Vol. 3, p. 
 360.) 
 
 Contracts made on Sabbath are valid. 
 
 The charter of the city of Denver previous to 1889 gave to 
 that city entire jurisdiction over the liquor traffic within its limits. 
 A city ordinance was passed requiring saloons to be closed only 
 
ILLlNOiy. 147 
 
 part of the Sabbath. In Huffsmith v. The People, it was lield 
 that the charter takes away all jurisdiction from the State, and 
 that there can be no prosecution for keeping open a saloon at the 
 hours permitted by the city ordinance. (8 Col. 175, 1884.) 
 
 This charter was amended in 1889, and luider the new char- 
 ter it was held, in Heinssen v. The State, that this exclusive jur- 
 isdiction is withdrawn and that the saloons must obey the State 
 law. Jutice Elliott in rendering- the opinion of tlu- court said 
 concerning the Colorado Statute : 
 
 "Our laws do not recognize Sunday as having any particular sanc- 
 tity or sacredness above other days; but the law does recognize the 
 fact that large numbers of our people abstain from their usual employ- 
 ments on Sunday, and that many of them devote the day more or less* 
 to religious worship and works of charity, while others enjoy it as a 
 day of rest, recreation or pleasure, according to their several inclina- 
 tions.... Provision is also made to promote peace and quiet, and to 
 prevent dissipation and disturbance, to the end that citizens of all 
 classes may enjoy the privileges of the day as they severally please, in 
 an orderly manner, without trespasing upon the privileges of others. 
 The observance of one day in seven as a day of rest is conduc- 
 ive to the sanitary, moral and physical well-being of the race." (14 
 Col. 228, 1890). 
 
 In Muller v. The People, this opinion was reaffirmed, the court de- 
 claring that, "We are satisfied that it was the intention of the general 
 assembly to subject municipal corporations organized under the gen- 
 eral laws of the State to the general statutory provisions relative to 
 the keeping open of saloons on Sunday." (24 Col. 251, 1897.) 
 
 With respect to the use of the Sunday newspaper to give public 
 notices required by law it is held that "The publication of notice of 
 the sale of real estate for taxes in a Sunday newspaper does not con- 
 stitute legal notice, and a sale based on such publication is void."^ 
 (Schwed V. Hartwitz et al. 23 Col. 187, 1896). 
 
 The validity of the law against keeping saloons open on the Sab- 
 bath and the fact that the fine is not excessive were maintained in 
 the case of Cardillo v. The People, 26 Col. 355. (1899.) 
 
 \\niile the law of Colorado fails in its prohibitory clause by 
 not forbidding business, and by forbidding only such labor and 
 amusements as disturb others, it still possesses some merit. The 
 judicial opinions, especially those against legal notices in Sunday 
 papers and the Sunday saloon are praiseworthy. 
 
 ILLINOIS. (1903.) 
 "Sunday" is the title of the Sections of the Criminal Code 
 of Illinois relating to the Sabbath ; they are as follows : 
 
I4S ILLINOIS. 
 
 '•259. Whoever keeps open any tippling house, or place where 
 liquor is sold or given away, upon the first day of the week, com- 
 monly called Sunday, shall be fined not exceeding $200." This penalty 
 has been changed to fine not exceeding $100, or imprisonment not ex- 
 ceeding six months. 
 
 "260. Sunday shall include the time from midnight to midnight. 
 
 "261. Whoever disturbs the peace and good order of society by 
 labor (works of necessity and charity excepted), or by any amusement 
 or diversion on Sunday, shall be fined not exceeding $25. This section 
 shall not be construed to prevent watermen and railroad companies 
 from landing their passengers, or watermen from loading and unload- 
 ing their cargoes, or ferrymen from carrying over the water travelers 
 and persons moving their families, on the first day of the week, nor 
 to prevent the due exercise of the rights of conscience by whoever 
 thinks proper to keep any other day as a Sabbath. 
 
 "262. Whoever shall be guilty of any noise, rout or amusement on 
 the first day of the week, called Sunday, whereby the peace of any 
 private family may be disturbed, shall be fined not exceeding $25." 
 (p. 665.) 
 
 In McPherscjii v. A'illage of Chejmnse, involving the right of 
 an incorporated village to pass an ordinance prohibiting persons 
 ■from keeping open their places of bnsiness for the purpose of 
 vending goods, wares and merchandise, on the first day of the 
 week, it was argued that such an ordinance is inconsistent with 
 and repugnant to the policy of the State. But the Court said : 
 
 "There is no repugnancy between them. We do not admit that 
 the keeping open of the stores in a village on Sunday is allowable 
 under the statute — that it would not disturb the peace and good order 
 of society. Sunday, as it is observed by common usage, is not only 
 set apart as a day of rest from labor, but it is devoted to religious wor- 
 ship. The consecration of the day to its wonted manner of observ- 
 ance, is a blessing to mankind. Besides the recuperative effect re- 
 ferred to, it has its other beneficial uses. It affords oppor- 
 tunity for moral, intellectual and social culture. It is pro- 
 motive of good habits, and tends to improve the manners of men. It 
 is civilizing and refining in all its influences. Whatever detracts 
 from the observance of the day, as it is customarily observed, is not 
 to be countenanced. The keeping open by persons of their places of 
 business in a community, on Sunday, for the exercise of the business 
 of their ordinary callings, is a public and serious interference with 
 the observance of the day in its accustomed mode of observance. It 
 is obstructive of the purposes for which the day is set apart. It is 
 offensive to the moral sense of the community. It disturbs the peace 
 of society, in its open interference with the peace and quiet of a day 
 devoted as a day of rest and for religious worship. It disturbs the 
 
IlJjyOIS. 149 
 
 good order of society in publicly and flauntingly, and in defiance of 
 public sentiment, desecrating a day, and inviting others to its desecra- 
 tion, set apart for purposes of the highest well being of human so- 
 ciety." (114 111. 46, 1886.) 
 
 In 1895 the legislature of Illinois passed an act making it "unlaw- 
 ful for any person or persons to keep open any barber shop, or carry 
 on the business of shaving, hair-cutting or tonsorial work, on Sunday, 
 within this State." To test the constitutionality of the act the case of 
 Eden v. The People was brought before a justice of the peace who 
 sustained the law. Appeal was taken to the Criminal Court of Cook 
 County by which the law was again sustained. The case was then 
 appealed to the Supreme Court by which the law was declared to be 
 unconstitutional. A brief examination of the case will be instructive. 
 
 It should be remembei*ed that Illinois belongs to a calss of States 
 whose Sabbath laws are weak in their prohibitory clauses. In this 
 case the court pointed to the fact that the Illinois statute "merely pro- 
 hibits labor and amusement which disturb the peace and good order 
 of society." Under this law it was held as follows: 
 
 "Each and every citizen is left perfectly free to labor and transact 
 business on Sunday or refrain from labor and business, as he might 
 choose, so long as he does not disturb the peace and good order of so- 
 ciety. By the act in question an attempt has been made by the legis- 
 lature to inaugurate a radical change in the law as to a class of the 
 
 laboring element of the State — the barbers The income derived 
 
 from his place, and his own labor and the labor of his employees, are 
 his property, but the legislature has by the act taken that property 
 
 from him The barber is thus deprived of property without due 
 
 process of law, in direct violation of the Constitution of the United 
 States and of this State." 
 
 It was held that this statute cannot be sustained as an exercise 
 of the police power of the State which involves the right to 
 protect the public interest, the public welfare, or, as stated in 
 this opinion, "the health, comfort, safety or welfare of society." 
 How, it may be asked, is tlie health, comfort, safety or welfare of 
 society to be injuriously affected by ke^^ping open a barber shop on 
 Sunday? It is a matter of common observation that the barber busi- 
 ness, as carried on in this State, is both quiet and orderly. ... In view 
 of the nature of the business and the manner in which it is carried on 
 it is difficult to perceive how the rights of any person can be affected 
 or how the' comfort or welfare of society can be disturbed." "If the 
 public welfare of the State demands that all business and all labor 
 of every description, except works of necessity and charity, shall cease 
 on Sunday, the first day of the week, and that day shall be kept as a 
 day of rest, the legislature has the power to enact a law requiring all 
 persons to refrain from their ordinary callings on that day. All will 
 then be placed on a perfect equality, and none can complain of an un- 
 
I50 ILLINOIS. 
 
 just discrimination. But when the legislature undertakes to single out 
 one class of labor harmless in itself, and condemn that and that alone, 
 it transcends its legitimate powers, and its action cannot be sus- 
 tained." (161 111. 296, 1896.) 
 
 In defining the word necessity it is held that by this term 'the law 
 does not mean a physical or absolute necessity, but a moral fitness 
 or propriety of the work done under the circumstances of each par- 
 ticular case. Any work necessary to be done to secure the public 
 safety, by the safe keeping of a felon or delivering him to bail must 
 come within the true meaning of the exception.' Generally speaking, 
 however, judicial acts cannot be done on the Lord's day. (Johnston 
 V. The People, 31 111. 469.) 
 
 In the case of Scammon v. The City of Chicago, the Supreme Court 
 held that a notice appearing in a Sunday newspaper is not valid. 40 
 111. 146. The Court said. "Although we have departed from the austere 
 observances of the New England colonists, we have not drifted so far 
 in the opposite direction as to recognize no distinction between Sun- 
 days and the other days of the week. The experience of the world 
 has taught the necessity of setting apart one-seventh of our time for 
 religious worship and meditation, and for complete repose from the 
 harassing and absorbing pursuit of gain, ambition and pleasure. Even 
 those who are not guided by the teachings of Christianity, acknowl- 
 edge the necessity of a rational observance of the Sabbath as conducive 
 in the highest degree to the temporal interests of society. While leg- 
 islation prescribing the precise mode of its observance would be justly 
 regarded as an unwarrantable interference with individual liberty, on 
 the other hand, all agree that no person should be permitted to follow 
 his ordinary secular occupations, if, by so doing he disturbs that portion 
 of the community which desires to devote the day to religious worship 
 and meditation." 
 
 Keeping open tippling houses on the Sabbath is a violation of the 
 statute, and it is not necessary to prove that it is done to the encour- 
 agement of idleness, gaming, drinking and other misbehaviour, but it 
 must be shown that liquor was sold or drank. Fant. v. The People, 45 
 111. 259. The law is violated if only beer is sold, or if the bar tender 
 keeps the saloon open and shows his v,'illingness to sell, though he 
 sell but a single glass or none at all. The law is violated, although 
 the person charged keeps a boarding house, and the saloon is used as 
 a sitting room for the boarders, provided it is also accessible to the 
 public for purposes prohibited by the statute. Koop v. The People, 47 
 111. 327. See also, 15 111. 441. Maine v. McCartney: 78 111. 294, Kroer 
 V. People, 294; 86 111. 33, Siebold v. People. 
 
 On a certain Sabbath a bill in chancery was brought "in the 
 Livingston Circuit Court, praying for a writ of injunction to re- 
 strain the Fairbury, Pontiac and Northwestern Railway Com- 
 
ILLINOIS. 151 
 
 pany from taking possession of one of the principal streets in the 
 incorporated town of Fairbury, for the purpose of grading, tie- 
 ing and ironing the same for the track of their railroad." The 
 bill was filed by a large property owner on the street to be taken 
 by the railway, and it alleges that the company, immediately 
 after twelve o'clock of the night of Saturday, with a large force 
 of men, had taken violent possession of the street for the express 
 and avowed purpose of finishing their track through its entire 
 length before the next Monday morning; and that they had se- 
 lected Sunday for the work, for the express purpose of evading 
 an injunction, and avoiding the process of court, and for the 
 purpose of obtaining and holding the street without paying for 
 it or the damages thereby occasioned to the property owners 
 upon it. The record in the case says : 
 
 "This bill was presented to the master in chancery, in the ab- 
 sence of the circuit judge, on Sunday. The writ of injunction was or- 
 dered by the master on that day, and issued by the clerk and served 
 by the sheriff on the same day." 
 
 At the next term of court the writ was quashed and the bill dis- 
 missed. The case went to the Supreme Court on a writ of error. 
 
 The ground taken by the railroad company was that since Sabbath 
 is dies non juridicus a writ cannot be issued on that day. The Court 
 said: 
 
 ''Here this dies non juridicus was selected by the railway com- 
 pany as the proper day to commit a great outrage upon private and 
 public rights, believing the arm of the law could not be extended on 
 that day to arrest them in their high handed and unlawful design. To 
 the complainant the acts they were organized to perpetrate on that day 
 were fraught with irreparable injury. Feeble indeed would be the 
 judicial arm if it could not reach such miscreants." (Langabier v. 
 P. F. & N. W. R. R. Co. G4 111. 243, 1872) 
 
 The case of Richmond v. Moore involved the validity of 
 contracts made on the Lord's day. The case came first before 
 the Superior Court of Cook County, next before the Appellate 
 Court of the First District, and finally before the Supreme Court 
 of the State. The validity of such contracts was sustained. 
 Among other things the Supreme Court said : 
 
 "Our statute, by its very terms, is for the preservation of the peace 
 and good order of society from disturbance. It is not, nor can it be, 
 te'd to have been the purpose of the statute to compel the performance 
 of a religious duty, however necessary to the future welfare of the in- 
 dividual failing to perform it. 
 
152 ILLINOIS. 
 
 "But the statute does protect the religious community from being 
 disturbed in their devotions ai)d worship by the indecent disregard of 
 their right to be undisturbed on that day. But it permits others, that 
 do not recognize the Christian Sabbath, to Iveep another day of rest. 
 This exception embraces Jews, Seventh Day Baptists, and it may be. 
 some other religious denominations. The object of the statute is to 
 protect persons keeping the Christian Sabbath as a day of holiness, 
 from disturbance in its observance, and not to compel the performance 
 of religious duties as such. That is no part of governmental duty 
 under our institutions. Our government is unlike the Brittish Gov- 
 ernment, as that government combines the ecclesiastical and secular 
 powers. Its constitution is based upon the union of church and State, 
 and it claims and exercises the power to enforce the faith and doc- 
 trines of the established church, by statutes imposing penalties for 
 failing to perform religious duties and requirements, and compelling 
 all to contribute support to the State church; on the contrary, how- 
 ever, a total severance of church and State is one of the great control- 
 ling foundation principles of our system of government. The spiritual 
 welfare of our people is left entirely to the hierarchy of the various 
 churches. The government protects all alike in their religious beliefs 
 and unbeliefs. It is no part of the function of our government to pre- 
 scribe and enforce religious tenets. The great purpose of the forma- 
 tion of our system of government is to protect the people in the en- 
 joyment of their temporal and spiritual rights and to prohibit crime,, 
 vice and wrong to any portion of the community and to pass and en- 
 force laws for the promotion of the temporal interests of the people, 
 and, as far as possible, secure their temporal welfare and happiness. 
 Although it is no part of the functions of our system of government 
 to propagate religion, and to enforce its tenets, when the great body 
 of the people are Christians, in fact or sentiment, our laws and in- 
 stitutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of 
 the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be other- 
 wise. And in this sense, and to this extent, our civilization and in- 
 stitutions are emphatically Christian, but not for the purpose of com- 
 pelling men to embrace particular doctrines or creeds of any church,, 
 or to support one or another denomination by public burthens, but sim- 
 ply to afford protection to all in the enjoyment of their belief or unbe- 
 lief. But the State has the unquestioned power to suppress crime, 
 vice and immorality, even if such acts are claimed to be the exercise 
 of religious belief. 
 
 "The legislature is absolutely powerless to enforce religious doc- 
 trines or beliefs, merely as such. It may be that in suppressing crime, 
 vice, or immorality, it may incidentally enforce religious doctrines. 
 The Christian religion forbids all crime, vice and immorality, and good 
 government equally requires their suppression. They are suppressed 
 by the government because required for the general welfare, and not 
 
MONTANA. 153- 
 
 because they are religious doctrines In all countries and ages 
 
 among civilized or partially civilized peoples, governments have set 
 apart days of rest, recurring at short periods. This has been, and still 
 is, regarded as necessary to the temporal welfare of the people, as a 
 certain amount of rest is regarded as absolutely necessary to man and 
 animals subjected to labor. Considerations of public policy demanding 
 such periods of rest, and the great body of Christians holding the ob- 
 servance of Sunday to be a religious duty, it is natural that the law- 
 making power, as a matter of public policy, should specify Sunday as 
 the day of rest, thereby conforming public policy to religious senti- 
 ment. But that Sunday is kept as a holy day by most Christian de- 
 nominations neither adds to nor detracts from the validity of the en- 
 actment. Had any other day of the week been selected, the enact- 
 ment would have had the same binding force." (107 111. 429, 1883.) 
 
 In the case of the Collins' Ice Cream Company v. Richard 
 H. Stephens, the latitudinarian character of the law was set forth 
 in the following words : 
 
 "By the contract plaintiff agreed to devote his entire time and at- 
 tention to the business of the defendant, and the contract is presumed 
 to have been made Avith reference to the usual custom of that kind of 
 business. Whether he would be bound to work on Sunday would de- 
 pend upon the manner of conducting the business and the established 
 custom. A contract which contemplates labor on Sunday not tending 
 to disturb the peace and good order of society nor constituting a vio- 
 lation of the criminal code is valid and enforceable." (189 111. 200, 
 1901.) 
 
 The difificiilties in the way of a uniform enforcement of a 
 statute which prohibits only what disturbs other people are clear- 
 ly presented in the opinions above quoted. What disturbs some 
 will not be regarded as a disturbance by others. 
 
 Some of the opinions here given render a weak law still 
 weaker while others have features that are highly commendable. 
 
 MONTANA. (1895.) 
 
 Chapter VI., Title IX., of the Statutes of Montana treats of 
 "OfiPenses against Good Morals." The following sections relate 
 to the first day of the week : 
 
 "530. Every person who on Sunday or the first day of the week 
 keeps open or maintains or aids in opening or maintaining any the- 
 atre, play-house, dance house, concert saloon or variety hall is guilty 
 of a misdemeanor. 
 
 "531. It is unlawful to conduct the business of hair-cutting, 
 shaving or shampooing, or to open barber shops for the doing of such' 
 business, on Sunday. 
 
154 NEBRASKA. 
 
 "532. Any person violating the provisions of this Act is guilty of 
 a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined for the first 
 offense, not less than fifteen dollars and not to exceed fifty dollars and 
 for any subsequent violation, a fine not less than twenty-five dollars 
 and not exceeding one hundi'ed dollars shall be imposed. 
 
 "533. Every person who wilfully disturbs or disquiets any as- 
 semblage of people met for religious worship, by noise, profane dis- 
 course, rude or indecent behaviour, or by any unnecessary noise, either 
 within the place where such meeting is held or so near it as to disturb 
 the order and solemnity of the meeting, is guilty of a misdemeanor." 
 (Vol. 4, pp. 843, 844.) 
 
 NEBRASKA. (1903.) 
 
 Chapter XXIII. of the Criminal Code of Nebraska is entitl- 
 •ed "Miscellaneous Offenses."' Section 241 is on "Sabbath 
 Breaking." It is as follows : 
 
 •'If any person of the age of fourteen years or upward shall be 
 found on the first day of th3 week, commonly called Sunday, sporting, 
 rioting, quarreling, hunting, fishing, or shooting, he or she shall be 
 fined in a sum not exceeding twenty dollars, or be confined in the 
 county jail for a term not exceeding twenty days, or both, at the dis- 
 cretion of the court. And if any person of the age of fourteen years 
 or upward shall be found on the first day of the week, commonly called 
 Sunday, at common labor (work of necessity and charity only ex- 
 cepted), he or she shall be fined in a sum not exceeding five dollars; 
 Provided, nothing herein contained in relation to common labor on said 
 first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, shall be construed to 
 extend to those who conscientiously do observe the seventh day of 
 the week as the Sabbath, nor to prevent families emigrating from 
 travelling, watermen from landing their passengers, superintendents 
 or keepers of toll bridges or toll gates from attending or superintend- 
 ing the same, or ferrymren from conveying travelers over the water, 
 or persons moving their families on such days, or to prevent railroad 
 ■companies from running necessary trains." (P. 1974.) 
 
 Section 14 of chapter 50 relates to liquor selling on Sabbath. It 
 declares that ''Every person who shall sell or give away any malt, 
 spirituous and vinous liquors on the day of any general or special 
 election, or at any time during the first day of the week, commonly 
 ■called Sunday, shall forfeit and pay for every such offense, the sum of 
 -one hundred dollars." (p. 1045.) 
 
 No court can be opened, nor any judicial business transacted on 
 the Sabbath, except to instruct a jury then deliberating, receive a ver- 
 ■dict or discharge a jury, to exercise the powers of a singe magistrate 
 or to grant or refuse a temporary injunction, (p. 831.) 
 
NEBRASKA. i55 
 
 No direct assault seems to have been made on the constitu- 
 tionahty of this law, but its constitutional grounds were pre- 
 sented in some measure by the Supreme Court in 1892 in the 
 case of the State v. O'Rourk. The defendants were arrested for 
 playing base ball on the Sabbath. Both the county judge and 
 the District Court held that playing base ball on the Sabbath is 
 not a violation of the law. The case was then taken to the Su- 
 preme Court and this opinion was reversed. Chief Justice Max- 
 well in delivering- the opinion with which all the judges con- 
 curred, said : 
 
 •'All free governnK-nt is based on the divine law. God gave the ten 
 commandments to Moses, which contain the rules designed to apply to 
 the whole race. Although given to the Israelites, they were designed 
 for all humanity." "Christianity is woven into the web and woof of 
 free government and but for it free government would not have ex- 
 isted, because no other system has been able to check the selfishness, 
 arrogance, cruelty and covetousness of the race." "As a Christian 
 people, therefore, jealous of their liberty and desiring to preserve the 
 same, the State has enacted certain statutes, which, among other 
 things, in effect, recognize the fourth commandment, and the Christian 
 religion and the binding force of the teachings of the Saviour. Among 
 these is the statute which prohibits sporting, hunting, etc., on Sun- 
 day." "The law, both human and divine, being thus in favor of ab- 
 staining from sporting, etc., on Sunday, is a reasonable requirement 
 and should be enforced. The deliberate violation of such a law, there 
 is reason to believe in many cases, is but the commencement of a 
 series of offenses that lead to infamy and ruin; and in any event the 
 influence upon the participants themselves has a tendency to break 
 down the moral sense and make them less worthy citizens." 
 
 After mentioning the immoral acts which the State punishes, the 
 court proceeds: "These cases show the importance felt by the legisla- 
 ture, of evils of the kind named, and others, by means of which, in ad- 
 dition to wrongs inflicted on the persons injured, a spirit of insubor- 
 dination is created and fostered which incites to evil and tends to sub- 
 vert the just and equal rights of some or all. In addition to this, every 
 person has a right to the quiet and peace of a rest day. He has also a 
 right to the enforcement of the law, so that the evil example of the de- 
 fiance of the law shall not be set before his children. The State has an 
 interest in their welfare also, in order that they may become useful 
 citizens and worthy and honorable members of society." (35 Neb. 
 614.) 
 
 The Supreme Court of Nebraska holds that 'Neither at common 
 law nor under our statute is a contract entered into on Sunday void 
 for that reason." (Horacek v. Keebler. 5 Neb. 355, (1877.) 
 
 When the day for performing a contract falls on Sabbath, that 
 
156 NEBRASKA. 
 
 day is not counted, and compliance with the terms of the contract oiii 
 the next day is deemed in law a performance, but when a contract is 
 to be fulfilled within a given number of days intervening Sabbaths are 
 counted. Post v. Garrow, 18 Neb.. 682, (1886). 33 Neb. 649, (1891.) 
 Where a railroad company runs trains on Sabbath and employees are 
 injured through negligence of the company,the company is not exoner- 
 ated because the accident occurred on Sabbath Johnson v. M. P. R. R. 
 Co. 18 Neb. 691 (1886). 
 
 While a drug store may be kept open for necessary purposes, the 
 proprietor may not engage in indiscriminate trade on Sunday. Persons 
 who believe the seventh day of the week is the Sabbath, but do not sO' 
 observe it, are not exempt from the prohibitions of the law. (Liberman 
 V, State, 26 Neb. 465, (1889.) 
 
 Where intoxicating liquors are sold or given away on Sabbath, the 
 principal is liable though not personally present. Martin v. State, 30' 
 Neb. 507, (1890.) 
 
 An order made by a judge on Sabbath is void. (Merchants Nat'! 
 Bank of Omaha v. Jaffray, 36 Neb. 218, (1893.) 
 
 When grace on a note or bill expires on Sabbath, it is due on Sat- 
 urday, and if Saturday is a legal holiday it is due on Friday. (51 Neb.. 
 707-715, (1897.) Judicial business cannot be transacted on Sabbath. 
 (Deere v. Hodges, 59 Neb. 288, (1899.) 
 
 In 1902 the Supreme Court rendered a decision which con- 
 strues very loosely the Nebraska law as it applies to sports. That 
 decision declares that a contract to furnish one performance, 
 consisting of music, dancing, and feats of contortion, each day of 
 the week, including Sunday, is not a violation of the law, and 
 the legislature having expressed the policy of the State in regard 
 to the observance of the Sabbath, the court will not add to the 
 restrictions by declaring such contract contrary to public policy. 
 (Wirth v. Calhoun, 64 Neb. 316.) 
 
 In State v. King the Supreme Court of Nebraska noted the 
 distinction between Sabbath and mere holidays, declaring as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 "The Creator instituted the Sabbath as a day of rest, and experi- 
 ence has shown the necessity of its observance by mankind generally, 
 as a means of preserving full mental and physical vigor. Hence at 
 common law, courts are prohibited from transacting business on Sun- 
 day No such reasons exist, however, in favor of holidays." The 
 
 court held that when a legal holiday falls on the first day of the- 
 week, Monday is not a legal holiday as to the holding of courts, etc.,. 
 but only as to the presentation and demand of commercial paper,. 
 (Neb. 23, 540, 1888.) 
 
NEVADA. 157 
 
 The Nebraska statute is weak because it prohibits neither 
 lousiness nor annisenients on the Lord's day. There are some 
 •excellent thini^s in sonic of the opinions. 
 
 NKVADA. (1885.) 
 
 "An Act for the better observance of the Lord's day," is 
 the title of the Sabbath law of Nevada. It is as follows : 
 
 "1. No person shall keep open any play-house or theater, race- 
 ground, cock-pit or play at any game of chance for gain, or engage in 
 any noisy amusement, on the first day of the week, commonly called 
 Lord's day. 
 
 "2. No judicial business shall be transacted by any court, except 
 deliberations of a jury who have received a case on a week day, so 
 ■called, and who may receive further instructions from the court, at 
 their request, or deliver their verdict; nor any civil process be served 
 by any certifying or attesting officer, nor any record made by any leg- 
 ally appointed or elected officer, upon the first day of the week, com- 
 monly called the Lord's day; provided, that criminal process may is- 
 sue for the apprehension of any person charged with crime, and crim- 
 inal examination to be proceeded with. 
 
 "3. Any person or persons violating the provisions of the two pre- 
 •ceeding sections of this Act shall be punished, on conviction thereof, 
 by a fine of not less than thirty dollars, nor more than two hundred 
 and fifty dollars for each offense." 
 
 Few cases under this law have reached the Supreme Court. In 
 1880 it was decided that ''An attachment suit can be commenced and 
 the writ served on Sunday whenever the plaintiff, or some person in 
 liis behalf makes the affidavit that it will be too late to wait till a 
 subsequent day." Most States allow the issuing and serving of the 
 writ, but not the commencement of the suit. 
 
 This law prohibits neither labor nor business, and only noisy 
 .amusements. There is not much occasion for cases for the courts to 
 arise. 
 
 NKW HAMPSHIRK. (iSqI.) 
 
 Chapter 271 of the New Hampshire Code is entitled, "Of- 
 fenses against morality and Religion." The sections relating to 
 the Sabbath have the sub-title, "Disturbances of the Lord's day." 
 They are as follows : 
 
 "3. No person shall do any work, business, or labor of his secular 
 calling, to the disturbance of others, on the first day of the week, 
 ■commonly called the Lord's day, except works of necessity and mercy, 
 ;and the making of necessary repairs upon mills and factories which 
 
158 yEW HAMPSHIRE. 
 
 could not be made otherwise without loss to operatives; and no per- 
 son shall engage in any play, game or sport on that day. 
 
 "4. No person shall, on the "Lord's day, discharge any firearms 
 for sport, or in the pursuit of game, nor carry a firearm in a field, 
 highway or private way, while in the pursuit of game or with intent 
 to discharge the same in sport. 
 
 "5. No person shall keep his shop, warehouse, cellar, restaurant 
 or workshop open for the reception of company, or shall sell or expose 
 for sale any merchandise whatsoever on the Lord's day: but this sec- 
 tion shall not be construed to prevent the entertainment of boarders, 
 nor the sale of milk, bread and the necessaries of life, nor drugs and 
 medicines." (p. 726.) 
 
 BilLs, etc., falling due on Sabbath are payable on the preceding: 
 day. 
 
 It should be observed that the New Hampshire Statute ttses 
 the term, "secular," instead of "ordinary," which word was em- 
 ployed in the Statute of Charles II. and interpreted to allow a 
 person to perform worldly labor provided it was not in the line 
 of his ordinary calling. 
 
 In 1827, the Superior Court of New Hampshire, said that 
 this substitution of "secular" for "ordinary" means that "any 
 work, labor or business relating to secular concerns, works of ne^ 
 cessity and mercy excepted," is prohibited." 
 
 It shotild be noted also that the phrase, "to the disturbance 
 of other," was not a part of the old law in New Hampshire, but 
 was added in the early part of the last century. In 1848 the Su- 
 perior Court gave an opinion as to the modifications of the law 
 made by this addition. The Court said : 
 
 "The old law not only protected the solemities of religion from 
 Interruption, and secured the public in their peaceful performance, but 
 also reminded the individual that he has religious duties to fulfill. It 
 tended to secure to him time and opportunity for their fulfillment by 
 prohibiting him from performing other things, and induced him to 
 turn his attention, for one day in the week, to religious reflection, by 
 refusing him permission to distract his mind by occupying himself 
 with his worldly affairs. 
 
 "This latter object the Revised Statute does not attempt to attain, 
 that is, it does not have in view the good effect upon the individual, 
 by prohibiting him from exercising his worldly calling. By the act 
 of 1799 he could not do this under any circumstances. By the Revised 
 Statute he may do it, with qualification, a condition, and that is, that 
 it be not to the disturbance of others. This provision aims only at 
 protecting the public in their devotions and religious reflections; 
 others, the law says, shall not be disturbed. It leaves each individual 
 
NEW HAMPSHIRE. 159 
 
 to employ himself as he may chose, subject only to this limitation. It 
 
 does not aim at guarding him from himself It leaves him to his 
 
 own conscience." 
 
 In this same opinion the court spoke as follows on the meaning of 
 the phrase, "to the disturbance of others." "If nothing can be con- 
 sidered a disturbance which people willingly submit to and take part 
 in, then the legislature did not intend to prohibit any assembly of per- 
 sons, for whatever purpose, provided the people present are willing ta 
 give up their religious duties and take part in whatever is done." 
 "Upon this principle a horse-race in a public street would be no dis- 
 turbance if the people chose to desert the churches and assemble on 
 the race-ground. A military parade on the Sabbath would not be pro- 
 hibited if the bystanders, or those who heard it, preferred military to 
 sacred music. A theater or a circus, a menagerie or a political caucus, 
 would no more be disturbances than would the services in the church. 
 But we do not think that such would be the true construction of the 
 act." The court declared further that contracts relating to secular 
 matters cannot be legally made on the Sabbath because two or more 
 persons are thereby disturbed. (19 N. H. 233.) 
 
 The party who would prosecute one who violates the Sabbath law 
 "must not only allege the act to have been done on the Lord's day, but 
 he must allege it to be work, labor, or business of the secular calling 
 of the person doing it; that it was done to the disturbance of others, 
 and that it was not a work of necessity or mercy." (Clough v. Shep- 
 ard, 31 N. H. 490.) 
 
 In the case of Allen v. Deming the Supreme Court said: 
 
 "In the judgment of many persons, such a law is impolitic, and 
 ought never to have been enacted, and they easily reach the illogical 
 result, that therefore it should be disregarded by those whose duty it 
 would otherwise be to enforce it, or at least great astuteness may be 
 properly exercised to defeat its operation. The law is alleged to be 
 difficult in its application and unjust in its effects; to interpose an in- 
 equitable defense to an honest demand; to interfere unnecessarily with 
 freedom of opinion and of action; and to give to merely formal ob- 
 servances the high sanction of the lav/. Some tribunals even have 
 seemed to consider it as a law which had better be suffered to pass in 
 silence, upon the ground substantially that it had been repealed by 
 public opinion." 
 
 "The toleration of amusements and the existence of fairs in Eng- 
 land to a greater or less degree upon the Sabbath, are readily ac- 
 counted for by their known accordance with the practice of Roman 
 Catholic countries, among which was England until the Reformation 
 in the reign of Henry the Eighth. With the spread of the reformed 
 religion, and the consequent improvement in civilization, the views 
 and manners of the people changed on the subject of the national ob- 
 servance of the Sabbath, and in all Protestant communitivS laws were 
 
^6o NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
 
 ■ enacted to secure it, varying in their provisions with the peculiarities 
 of the people." 
 
 The court held that a note given on Sabbath is void. "A party 
 should not be heard before a tribunal whose duty it is to declare the 
 law when his cause of action arises from a transgression of the law." 
 (14 N. H. 133, 1843.) 
 
 The sale of a note on Saturday but perfected on Sabbath is ille- 
 gal. (Smith V. Foster, 4l N. H. 215, 18G0.) 
 
 In the case of Woodman v. Hubbard, in 1852, the Superior 
 Court gave an opinion as to contracts made on Sabbath that de- 
 serves notice. In this case the defendant hired a horse from the 
 plaintiff to drive to a specified place and return. He drove sev- 
 eral miles further and returned the same day and as a result the 
 horse died. The plaintiff' sought to recover damages for the 
 value of the horse. The defendant made the plea that the whole 
 transaction took place on the Sabbath, that the contract was void 
 and could not be enforced. The Court said : 
 
 "It necessarily follows from this view of the case, that a man is 
 wholly without remedy for any injury that may be done to the horse 
 he lets on Sunday, in violation of law, if the necessity of showing his 
 illegal contract will preclude his recovery. Though the property is 
 conceded to remain in the plaintiff, he has no remedy to enforce his 
 right, because he cannot show it without showing the illegal contract 
 of letting. And in all the numerous cases where horses were illegally 
 let on Sunday, the hirer might with perfect impunity retain and sell 
 them. This appears to us to be pushing the application of a well 
 settled principle to an unnecessary and extravagant length, not re- 
 quired nor warranted by the general current of authorities. (5 Fos- 
 ter 67.) 
 
 Previous to 1799 the law of New Hamsphire prohibited 
 travelling "on the Lord's day, between sun rising and sun set- 
 ting, unless from necessity, or to attend public worship, visit the 
 sick or do some office of charity." 
 
 In an opinion rendered in 1857 '^^ the case of Corey v. Bath, 
 the Supreme Court said : 
 
 "Travelling on Sunday, in an orderly and decent manner, to visit 
 a parent, is not to be regarded as a criminal recreation, within the 
 meaning of the statute. Travelling on Sunday, in the prosecution of 
 secular business, to the disturbance of others, would be within the 
 other branch of the statute." (35 N. H. 530.) 
 
 In 1866 in deciding that the execution of a will on the Sab- 
 bath is not illegal, the Supreme Court spoke as follows on the 
 same matter : 
 
NE W HA MPSHIRE. 1 6 1 
 
 "The changes introduced by the Revised Statutes were designed 
 to withdraw all legislative control over the acls and conduct of the in- 
 dividual citizen, so far as they did not interfere with the public observ- 
 ance of the Lord's day — wisely holding that in respect to acts of a pri- 
 vate nature not calculated to disturb others in the exercise of the ap- 
 propriate duties of the day, the individual conscience alone should de- 
 cide. At the same time we perceive no intention to diminish the re- 
 straints upon those unnecessary worldly acts which interfere with the 
 public observance of the Lord's day; and therefore such acts when 
 done openly or publicly in the presence of others are prohibited, be- 
 cause they are calculated to turn the attention of those who are pres- 
 ent from their appropriate religious duties to matters of mere worldly 
 concern, and thus to disturb them in the sense in which the term is 
 used in the statute. The policy of the act is still to encourage the due 
 observance of the Sabbath, as a day of rest from worldly labors and 
 iraffic, and of devotion to religious duties; and although it is left to 
 the conscience of each citizen to decide whether he shall himself in 
 private perform any secular labor, he must take care to do no such 
 labor in a manner to turn the attention of others from their appropri- 
 -ate duties and fix it upon worldly business or traffic. The purpose is 
 to give every citizen an opportunity to discharge the religious duties 
 Incumbent upon him on that day, without being diaturbed, or having 
 Tiis attention withdrawn, by the career of woi'ldly traffic or labor; and 
 it is wholly immaterial whether it be so withdrawn with his own con- 
 -sent or not, inasmuch as such acts are equally subversive of that pub- 
 lic order and decency which the law designed to promote, whether as- 
 sented to or not by the persons present." (George v. George, 47 N. H, 
 27.) 
 
 The case of Chenette v. Techan shows that there are serious com- 
 •plications growing out of these inconsistent opinions. In this case the 
 defendant hired a horse and buggy of the plaintiff for a pleasure 
 drive on the Lord's day. Through carelessness of the driver the buggy 
 was damaged. The owner could not recover because the contract was 
 made on the Lord's day. Taking the drive it seems was no violation 
 of the law, but making the contract was. (63 N. H. 149, 1884.) 
 
 An illustration of the methods followed to defraud by taking ad- 
 vantage of the Sabbath law is found in Jameson v. Carpenter. The 
 plaintiff labored for the defendant at a fixed price. One Sabbath 
 shortly after he began work, the defendant paid him $20.50, when only 
 $7.25 was due. Plaintiff tried to collect wages a second time on the 
 plea that the payment on Sabbath was illegal. The plea was not sus- 
 tained. (68 N. H. 62.) 
 
 While the law of this State prohibits only work, labor or 
 business that disturbs others, an opinion by the Supreme Court 
 greatly strengthens this clause, and deprives it of mo.st of its 
 liarmful effects. 
 
i62 NEW MEXICO. 
 
 NEW MEXICO. (1897.) 
 
 The Sabbath law of New Mexico is found in Chapter V.^. 
 Title IX., relating to "Crimes and Offenses." It is entitled 
 "Sabbath Observance." The law follows: 
 
 "1368. Any person or persons who shall be found on the first day 
 of -the week, called Sunday, engaged in any sports, or in horse racing, 
 cock fighting, or in any other manner disturbing any worshiping as- 
 sembly, or private family, or attending any public meeting, or public 
 exhibition, or engaged in any labor, except works of necessity, charity 
 or mercy, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding fifteen dollars, nor 
 less than five dollars, or imprisonment in the county jail of not more 
 than fifteen days, nor less than five days, in the discretion of the court, 
 upon conviction before any district court. 
 
 "1370. It shall be lawful in cases of necessity for farmers and 
 gardeners to irrigate their lands, and when necessary to preserve the 
 same, to remove grain and other products from the fields on said day; 
 and nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent cooks, waiters 
 and other employes of hotels and restaurants, and of butchers and 
 bakers, from performing their duties on said day. 
 
 1371 declares that no civil process shall be issued or served on 
 Sabbath, except when there is danger of loss or serious inconvenience. 
 
 1369 declares that fines collected under this act shall be applied 
 to the school fund. Sunday for the purpose of this act is the time be- 
 tween sunrise and midnight, (p. 396.) 
 
 The Supreme Court of New Mexico has decided that "There is no 
 law in this territory invalidating a contract of enlistment by a soldier 
 entered into on Sunday." (1 N. M. 172.) 
 
 In 1884 the Supreme Court gave its opinion that •a veridct rendered 
 on Sabbath is valid. The Court said: "Is it to be said that the 
 sanctity of the day is violated by discharging from unnecessary con- 
 finement twelve citizens who have completed important and honorable 
 service for the State? Is it desecration to permit the return to their 
 homes and join with their families in such observation of the day as 
 may seem good to their consciences? We think not; and are therefore 
 clearly of the opinion that the return of the verdict in this case on 
 Sunday was proper." (3 N. M. 76.) 
 
 The law^ of this territory does not prohibit the transaction of 
 business. The judicial opinions are few and add little to the 
 arjg-ument for Sabbath laws. 
 
 OREGON. (1887.) 
 The title of Chapter VIII., of the Oregon Code, in which the 
 
OREGON. 163 
 
 sections relating to the Sabbath are found is, "Crimes against 
 public policy." These sections are the following: 
 
 "1890. If any person shall keep open any store, shop, grocery, 
 ball-alley, billiard-room, or tippling-house, for the purpose of labor or 
 traffic, or any place of amusement, on the first day of the week, com- 
 monly called Sunday or Lord's day, such person, upon conviction there- 
 of, shall be punished by fine not less than five nor more than fifty dol- 
 lars; provided, that the above provision shall not apply to the keepers 
 of drug stores, doctor shops, undertakers, livery stable keepers, bar- 
 bers, butchers and bakers; and all circtimstances of necessity and 
 mercy may be pleaded in defense, which shall be treated as questions 
 of the fact for the jury to determine, when the offense is tried by jury." 
 (Vol. 1, pp. 957, 958.) 
 
 "1896. If any person shall serve or execute any civil process on 
 a Sunday or thj Lord's day, such service shall be void, and such per- 
 son, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not less than 
 five nor more than fifty dollars." (Vol. 1, p. 959.) 
 
 "1909. No person shall keep open any house or room in which 
 intoxicating liquor is kept for retail, on the first day of the week, com- 
 monly called Stinday, or give, or sell, or otherwise dispose of intoxi- 
 cating liquors on that day; any person violating this section shall be' 
 fined in any sum not exceeding twenty-five nor less than ten dollars 
 for each offense; and such fine to be for the use of common schools 
 in the county in which the offense was committed; provided, that this 
 section, so far as it prohibits keeping open a house or room, shall not 
 apply to tavern-keepers." (Vol. 1, pp. 962, 963.) 
 
 Arrests cannot be made on Subbath unless the crime charged be 
 a felony, or a case of a misdemeanor unless upon the direction of the 
 magistrate, indorsed upon the warrant. 
 
 Until 1901 barbering on Sabbath was permitted, but the following 
 act was passed February 11, of that year. 
 
 "Be it enacted by the Legislature Assembly of the State of Oregon. 
 
 "1. That it shall be a misdemeanor for any person or persons to 
 carry on the business of barbering on Sunday in Oregon." 
 
 Section 2 fixes the penalty for the first offense at ten dollars fine 
 or imprisonment in the county jail for five days, and for the second of- 
 fense a fine of not less than twenty-five nor more than fifty dollars may- 
 be imposed, or imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 
 twenty-five days. 
 
 It is lawful to give instruction to a jury, deliberating on a verdict,. 
 on Sabbath; to receive a verdict or discharge a jury; to exercise the 
 power of a magistrate in a criminal action or in a proceeding of a crim- 
 inal nature. 
 
 The Supreme Court of Oregon has decided that an indictment dated 
 on Sabbath is not void. In the case in which this opinion was given^ 
 
x64 ' WASHJNGTON. 
 
 a man had been indicted, tried and condemned for the ci'ime of burg- 
 larly. The indictment was dajed on Sabbath. (16 Ore. 105.) 
 
 A notice given on Sabbath to produce papers at a trial is good. 
 (28 Ore. 168.) 
 
 In 1897 the Supreme Court gave an opinion of considerable value 
 in Ex parte Tlce. In this case in the lower Court, the jury failing to 
 agree was discharged on Sabbath, the plaintiff having given his con- 
 sent. A number of cases are cited to confirm the position "that Sun- 
 day at common law was dies non juridicus.." The Court then says: 
 "Such being the rule at common law the right to perform any judicial 
 act on Sunday must be sought for in the act conferring it." The con- 
 sent of the plaintiff to the discharge of the jury is declared to be with- 
 out merit. As "the public has an interest in the observance of Sunday 
 as a day of rest, and a right to see that it shall riot be desecrated ex- 
 cept incases of urgent need, plaintiff could not waive the public right." 
 (32 Or. 179.) 
 
 In the case of Wachsmuth v. Routledge the court held that where 
 a record was ordered to be filed on November 14, which was Sabbath, 
 -and it was filed on the 15, the filing was in time. 
 
 The weakness of this law Hes in its failure to prohibit labor 
 and in making- needless exceptions. 
 
 WASHINGTON. (189I.) 
 
 The Sabbath law of Washington is found in the Criminal 
 Code, Chapter III., entitled "Of Crimes Against the Public 
 Peace.'The sections relating to the Sabbath are the following: 
 
 "98. If any person be found on the first day of the week, com- 
 monly called Sunday, engaged in any riot, or offering to fight, horse- 
 racing, or dancing, whereby any worshipping assembly or private 
 family are disturbed, every person so offending shall on conviction be 
 fined in a sum not to exceed one hundred dollars, to be recovered be- 
 fore any justice of the peace in the county where such offense is com- 
 mitted, and shall be committed to the jail of such county until the said 
 line, together with the costs of prosecution, shall be paid." (p. 680.) 
 
 "210. Any person who shall keep open any play-house or theater, 
 race-ground, cock-pit, or play at any game of chance for gain, or en- 
 gage in any noisy amusements, or keep open any drinking or billiard 
 saloon, or sell or dispose of any intoxicating liquors as a beverage, 
 on the first day of th9 week, commonly called Sunday, shall, upon con- 
 viction thereof, be punished by a fine not less than thirty dollars nor 
 more than two hundred and fifty dollars. All fines collected for viola- 
 tion of this section shall be paid into the common school fund." (p. 
 
 711.) 
 
 "211. It shall be unlawful for any person or persons of this State 
 to open on Sunday for the purpose of trade or sale of goods, wares 
 
WASJ1L\GT0X. 165 
 
 and merchandise, any shop, store, or buihling or place of business 
 whatever; provided, that this section shall apply to hotels only in so 
 far as the sale of intoxicating liquors is concerned, and shall not ap- 
 ply to drug-stores, livery-stables, or undertakers. Any person or per- 
 sons violating this section shall* be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on 
 conviction thereof shall be fined in any sum not less than twenty-five 
 dollars, nor more than one hundred dollars." (p. 711.) 
 
 It has been held by the Supreme Court of Washington that under 
 the provisions of the act of Congress relating to the protection of 
 salmon in the waters of Alaska, fishing in those waters on Sabbath is 
 not illegal. A person making a contract with a company as a fisher- 
 man in which the Sabbath is not excepted is bound to fish on Sabbath. 
 (4 Wash. 689.) 
 
 It has been held that the Washington laws relating to the observ- 
 ance of the Sabbath ''do not purport to prohibit the transaction of 
 business or to render ordinary business transactions void. (Main v. 
 Johnston, 7 W. 321.) In the case of State v. Binnard it was held ta 
 be unlawful to keep a saloon open on the Sabbath. (21 W. 349.) 
 
 The law against opeining shops for trade, etc., does not apply to 
 barber shops. (10 W. 166.) 
 
 Rent falling due on Sabbath cannot be collected till the following 
 day. (11 W. 296.) 
 
 An ordinance of a city prohibiting barbers from pursuing their 
 calling on Sabbath for compensation, is void as an act of special legis- 
 lation. (15 W. 296.) 
 
 If this statute included la])or under its prohibitory clause it 
 would be an admirable law. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 NO SABBATH LAWS IN TWO STATES AND ONE 
 ^ TERRITORY. 
 
 Neither Arizona, California nor Idaho has a Sabbath law. 
 The statutes must be examined, however, to learn the legal 
 status of the first day of the week. 
 
 * ARIZONA. (19OI.) 
 
 The statutes of Arizona contain the following : 
 "Sec. 2709. Sunday, the first day of January, the twenty-second 
 day of February, the thirtieth day of May, the fourth day of July, the 
 twenty-fifth day of December, the day on which a general election is 
 held, Thanksgiving day, and Arbor day, shall each and all be holidays. 
 "2710. Public oflices shall not be open on holidays. 
 "2711. No court of justice shall be open, nor shall any judicial 
 business be transacted on any legal holiday, except for the following 
 purposes: 
 
 1. To give, upon their request, instructions to a jury, when de- 
 liberating on their verdict. 
 
 2. To receive a verdict or discharge a jury. 
 
 3. For the exercise of the powers of a magistrate in a criminal 
 action; Provided, that injunctions, attachments, claim and delivery and 
 writs of prohibition may be issued and served on any day." (pp. 721, 
 722.) 
 
 166 
 
CALIFORNIA. 167 
 
 CAUFORNIA. (1905.) 
 
 California contributes an exceedingly interesting and in- 
 structive chapter to the history of the struggle on the Sabbath 
 question. In April. 1858, the legislature of this State passed 
 an act entitled "An Act for the better observance of the Sab- 
 bath." In the same month the Supreme Court in Ex parte New- 
 man declared the act unconstitutional. Chief Justice Terry an- 
 nounced the opinion of the Court. Mr. Justice Burnette gave 
 a supplementary opinion in which he expressed his agreement 
 with Judge Terry's opinion, but not with his argument. The 
 court held that the law was in conflict with the first and fourth 
 sections of Article first of the Constitution, which forbid discrim- 
 ination or preference in religion, and that the enforced observ- 
 ance of a day held sacred by any sect is a discrimination in favor 
 of that sect, and a violation of the religious freedom of others. 
 It was declared that when the citizen is compelled by the legis- 
 lature to do any affirmative religious act, or to refrain from doing 
 anything because it violates simply a religious principle or observ- 
 ance, the act is unconstitutional. It was asserted that if the leg- 
 islature can prescribe the days of rest, it would seem that the 
 same power can prescribe the hours to work, rest and cat. 
 
 Judge Terry, in his opinion, called attention to the title of 
 the act and declared that there is no expression in the act under 
 consideration which can lead to the conclusion that it was in- 
 tended as a civil rule, as contradistinguished from a law for the 
 benefit of religion. It is called "An act for the better observance 
 of the Sabbath," and the prohibitions in the body of the act are 
 confined to the 'Christian .Sabbath.' " 
 
 He denied the necessity for laws protecting men in the en- 
 joyment of periods of rest. He said : 
 
 ''When we come to inquire what reason can be given for the claim 
 of power to enact a Simdaj'^ law, we are told, looking at it in its pure- 
 ly civil aspect, that it is absolutely necessary for the benefit of his 
 health and the restoration of his powers, and in aid of this great social 
 necessity, the legislature may, for the general convenience, set apart 
 a particular day of rest, and require its observance by all. 
 
 "This argument is founded on the assumption that mankind are in 
 th ^ habit of working too much, and thereby entailing evil upon society, 
 an! that without compulsion they will not seek the necessary repose 
 which their exhausted natures demand. This to us is a new theory. 
 
i68 CALIFORNIA. 
 
 and is contradicted by the history of the past and the observations of 
 the present. We have heard, in all ages, of declamations and re- 
 proaches against the vice of indolence, but we have yet to learn that 
 there has ever been any general complaint of an intomperate, vicious, 
 unhealthy or morbid industry. On the contrary, we know that man- 
 kind seek cessation from toil from the natural influences of self-preser- 
 vation, in the same manner and as certainly as they seek slumber, re- 
 lief from pain, or food to appease their hunger." 
 
 He announced as a basis on which to rest his argument, the social 
 compact theory of government. On this point he said, ''When societies 
 are formed each individual surrenders certain rights, and as an equiva- 
 lent for that surrender has secured to him the enjoyment of certain 
 others appertaining to his person and property, without the protection 
 of which society cannot exist." He contended that the enactment of 
 a Sabbath law is an unwarranted limitation placed upon the rights- 
 which the government is bound to protect. He declared that when- 
 ever the legislature attempts to fix hours for rest and labor, "it leaves 
 its legitimate sphere, and makes an iucursion into the realms of physi- 
 ology; and its enactments, like the sumptuary laws of the ancients, 
 which prescribe the mode and texture of people's clothing, or similar 
 laws which might prescribe and limit our food and drink, must be re- 
 garded as an invasion, without reason and necessity, of the natural 
 rights of the citizen, whicli are guaranteed by the fundamental law. 
 The truth is, however much it may be disguised, that this one day of 
 rest is a purely religious idea. Derived from the Sabbath institutions 
 of the ancient Hebrew it has been adopted into all the creeds of suc- 
 ceeding religious sects throughout the civilized world If the leg- 
 islature have the authority to appoint a time of compulsory rest, we 
 should have no right to interfere with it, even if they required a cessa- 
 tion 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." 
 
 If the Judge had grasped and heeded the principle, so fre- 
 quently announced by other judges, that the Sabbath is a civil 
 institution, he would have been restrained from such folly. When 
 a statute law grows out of a custom it recognizes that custom 
 as it exists. If it were the custom of the people to rest six days 
 of the week and to labor only one, the law would take note of the 
 custom and embody it in its mandates. The power of the legis- 
 lature is not an. arbitrary power to be wielded in a whimsical 
 manner, but a power limited and controlled both by the written 
 constitution and the common law. 
 
CALIFORNIA. 169, 
 
 Had the judge held right views on the theory of government 
 he would not have soiled his ermine with the mire of the social 
 compact philosophy. 
 
 A few sentences from the dissenting opinion of Judge Field 
 should here be given both because of their intrinsic merit and be- 
 cause this opinion was- adopted a few years later as the opinion 
 of the court. Judge Field said : 
 
 "The petitioner is an Israelite, engaged in the sale of clothing, and 
 his complaint is, not that his religious profession or worship is inter- 
 fered with, but that he is not permitted to dispose of his goods on 
 Sunday; not that any religious observance is imposed upon him, but 
 that his secular business is closed on a day on which he does not think 
 proper to rest. In other words, the law, as a civil regulation, by the 
 generality if its provisions, interrupts his acquisitions on a day which 
 does not suit him. The law treats of business matters, not religious 
 duties. In fixing a day of rest, it establishes only a rule of civil con- 
 duct. In limiting its command to secular pursuits it necessarily leaves 
 religious profession and worship free. It is absurd to say that the sale 
 of clothing, or other goods, on Sunday, is an act of religious worship; 
 it follows that the inhibition of such sales does not interfere with either. 
 
 The legislature possesses the undoubted right to pass laws for 
 
 the preservation of health and the promotion of good morals, and if 
 it is of opinion that periodical cessation from labor will tend to both, 
 and thinks proper to carry its opinion into a statutory enactment on 
 the subject, there is no power, outside of its constituents, which can 
 sit in judgment on its action. It is not for the judiciary to assume a 
 wisdom which it denies to the legislature, and exercise a supervision- 
 over the discretion of the latter. It is not the province of the judiciary 
 to pass upon the wisdom and policy of legislation ; and when it does so, 
 it usurps a power never conferred by the Constitution. 
 
 "It is no answer to the requirements of the statute to say that 
 mankind will seek cessation from labor by the natural influences of 
 self-preservation. The position assumes that all men are independent, 
 and at liberty to work whenever they choose. Whether this be true 
 or not in theory, it is false in fact; it is contradicted by every day's 
 experience. The relations of superior and subordinate, master and 
 servant, principal and clerk, always have and always will exist. La- 
 bor is in a degree dependent upon capital, and unless the exercise of 
 the power which capital affords is restrained, those who are obliged to 
 labor will not possess the freedom for rest which they would otherwise 
 exercise. The necessities for food and raiment are imperious; and 
 the exactions of avarice are not easily satisfied. It is idle to talk of a 
 man's freedom to rest when his wife and children are looking to his 
 daily labor for their daily support. The law steps in to restrain the 
 power of capital. Its object is not to protect those who can rest at 
 
I70 CALIFORNIA. 
 
 their pleasure, but to afford rest to those who need it, and who, from 
 the conditions of society, could n6t otherwise obtain it. Its aim is to 
 prevent the physical and moral debility which spring from uninter- 
 rupted labor; and in this respect it is a beneficent and merciful law. 
 It gives one day to the poor and dependent, from the enjoyment of 
 which no capital or power is permitted to deprive them. It is theirs 
 for repose, for social intercourse, for moral culture, and, if they choose, 
 for divine worship. Authority for the enactment I find in the great 
 object of all government, which is protection. 
 
 "The fact that the civil institution finds support in the religious 
 opinions of the vast majority of the people of California is no argument 
 against its establishment. 
 
 "It would be fortunate for society if all wise rules obtained a ready 
 obedience from the citizens, not merely from the requirements of the 
 law, but from conscienscious or religious convictions of their obliga- 
 tion. The law against homicide is not less wise and necessary because 
 the divine command is, 'Thou slialt do no murder.' The legislation 
 against perjury is not the less useful and essential for the due admin- 
 istration of justice because the injunction comes from the Most High, 
 'Thou Shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.' The establish- 
 ment by law of Sunday as a day of rest from labor is none the less a 
 beneficient and humane regulation, because it accords with the divine 
 precept that upon that day 'thou shalt do no manner of work; thou, 
 and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant and thy maid-servant, 
 thy cattle, and thy stranger that is within thy gates.' " 
 
 In reply to the argument of Mr. Justice Terry based upon the use 
 of the terms, "Sabbath" and "Christian Sabbath," employed in the 
 title and in the body of the statute, Mr. Justice Field said that the 
 terms are used simply to designate the day selected by the legislature. • 
 The same construction would obtain and the same result follow if any 
 other terms were employed, as 'the Lord's day, commonly called Sun- 
 day,' contained in the statute of Pennsylvania, or simply the 'Sabbath 
 day,' or 'the first day of the week,' as in several States." (9 Cal. 502, 
 1858.) 
 
 The law was reenacted in substantially the same form in 
 i86i, under the title "For the observance of the Sabbath." In 
 July of that year, in the case of Ex Parte Andrews (i8 Cal. 679) 
 the Supreme Court held the law to be constitutional. Judge 
 Baldwin in delivering the opinion of the court said : 
 
 "Unquestionably, under our system, the legislature has power to 
 repress whatever is hurtful to the general good. This is a great pur- 
 pose and end of all government. It is just as true that under our the- 
 ory the legislature must generally be the exclusive judge of what is 
 or is not hurtful ... If from physical causes the carrying on of particu- 
 lar pursuits — as in certain mines or some mechanical branches which 
 
CALIFORNIA. I7i 
 
 generate disease— is hurtful to health, it is within the power of gov- 
 ernment to regulate the business so as to obviate or mitigate such re- 
 sults. And of both the evil and the remedy the legislature is the judge, 
 and why should the power be less or different when the evil is moral 
 instead of physical? The legislature has not only tne power to regu- 
 late, but the power to suppress particular branches of business which 
 it considers immoral and prejudicial to the general good, as gambling, 
 lotteries, etc. The duty of government comprehends the moral as well 
 as the physical welfare of the State; and in this instance, it is asserted 
 on behalf of this law, that the passage of it is to the welfare of the 
 people, both moral and physical." 
 
 Referring to the fourth section of the tirst article of the constitu- 
 tion, which guarantees the free exercise and enjoyment of religious 
 profession and worship, and upon which the argument for the uncon- 
 stitutionality of the law was chiefly based, .Tudge Baldwin said: "We 
 understand this to be an interdict against all legislation which invidi- 
 ously discriminates in favor of or against any religious system. It 
 does not interdict all legislation upon subjects connected with re- 
 ligion; much less does it make void legislation, the effect of which 
 is to promote religion, or even advance the interests of a sect or class 
 of religionists. On the contrary, the interests and even the rites of 
 sects have been oftentimes protected by law, as by acts of incorpora- 
 tion of churches, exemption from taxation in some States, protection 
 of meetings from interruption, and the like acts. While the primary ob- 
 ject of legislation, which respects secular affairs, is not the promotion 
 of religion, yet it can be no objection to laws, that while they are im- 
 mediately aimed at secular interests, they also promote piety." He 
 declared that the fact that the day protected was the day observed by 
 Christians for worship, was no reason for holding the law to be un- 
 constitutional, that the act requires no one either to support any re- 
 ligious sect or to have a religion, that it enjoins nothing that is not 
 secular, and commonds nothing that is religious, that it is purely a 
 •civil regulation, and spends its whole force upon matters of civil econ- 
 omy. In replying to the argument based upon the use of the terms, 
 "Sabbath" and Christian Sabbath, it was declared that even if one of 
 the motives of the framers of the act was. to enforce a religious re- 
 spect for the Sabbath, it would be difficult to maintain that this invali- 
 dates it on the ground of its unconstitutionality. 
 
 Without entering into a full discussion of the matters involved the 
 court adopted as its own the opinion of Mr. Justice Field in Ex parte 
 Newman, 9 Cal. 518. 
 
 In Ex Parte Bird the law was again declared constitutional. 
 (19 Cal. 130. 1861.) 
 
 In 1872 a new law was enacted and all former laws repealed. 
 It is contained in Chapter \'II. of the Penal Code, and is en- 
 
172 CALIFORNIA. 
 
 titled, "Of Crimes against religion and Conscience, and other 
 offenses against good moral-s." It is as follows : 
 
 "299. Every person who, on the Christian Sabbath, gets up, ex- 
 hibits, opens, or maintains, or aids in getting up, exhibiting, opening, 
 or maintaining, any bull, bear, cock, or prize fight, horse-race, circus, 
 gambling-house, or saloon, or any barbarous and noisy amusement, or 
 who keeps, conducts, or exhibits any theater, melodeon, dance- cellar, 
 or other place of musical, theatrical, or operatic performance, spec- 
 tacle, or representation where any wines, liquors, or intoxicating, 
 drinks are bought, sold, used, drank, or given away, or who purchases 
 any ticket of admission, or directly or indirectly pays any admission 
 fee to or for the purpose of witnessing or attending any such place,. 
 amusement, spectacle, performance or representation, is guilty of a 
 misdemeanor." 
 
 "300. Every person who keeps open on Sunday any store, work- 
 shop, bar, saloon, banking-house, or other place of business, for the 
 purpose of transacting business therein, is punishable by fine not less 
 than four nor more than fifty dollars." 
 
 This was amended in 1880 to read as follows: "The provisions- 
 of the preceding section do not apply to persons who, on Sunday,, 
 keep open hotels, boarding-houses, barber-shops, baths, markets, res- 
 taurants, taverns, livery-stables, or retail drug stores, for the legiti- 
 mate business of each, or such manufacturing establishments as are 
 usually kept in continued operation; provided, that the provisions of 
 the preceding section shall not apply to persons keeping open barber- 
 shops, bath-houses, and hair-dressing saloons after 12 o'clock M. ou 
 Sunday." 
 
 In 1880 an act to provide for a bakers' day of rest was passed. It 
 is as follows: "1. It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in 
 the business of baking to engage or permit others in his employ to en- 
 gage in the labor of baking, for the purpose of sale, between the hours- 
 of six o'clock P. M. on Saturday, and six o'clock on Sunday, except in 
 the setting of sponge preparatory to the night's work; provided, how- 
 ever, that restaurants, hotels, and boarding-houses may do such baking 
 as is necessary for their own consumption." 
 
 "2. Any person violating the provisions of this act shall be guilty 
 of a misdemeanor, and shall be punishable by imprisonment in the 
 county jail not less than one month nor more than six months, or by 
 a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than two hundred 
 dollars, or by both fine and imprisonment." (pp. 128, 129.) 
 
 In July, 1880, the act providing for a bakers' day of rest was de- 
 clared unconstitutional, because it was special legislation and in con- 
 flict with section 25, Article IV., of the Constitution. (55 Cal. 550), 
 Ex parte Westfield.) 
 
 In July, 1881 the constitutionality of the Sabbath law was agaio 
 passed upon by the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Morrison in ren- 
 
CALIFORNIA. 173 
 
 •deriug the decision of the court considered at some length the consti-' 
 tutional grounds of such legislation. It had been argued that Article 
 1, Section 4 of the Constitution, which declares that "the free exercise 
 and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimin- 
 ation or preference, shall forever be guaranteed in this State," forbids 
 the enactment of a Sabbath law. Judge Morrison shows conclusively 
 that this is not correct. But he denies that it is "a religious regula- 
 tion." He declares that "it is purely a secular, sanitary, or police reg- 
 ulation." He states that such legislation is uniformly upheld as con- 
 stitutional by the courts of the different States, but he adds, "It is 
 true, that they are not uniform in the view that the acts can be sus- 
 tained from a religious standpoint and upon religious grounds, but they 
 are uniform in holding that such a law does not violate any consti- 
 tutional provision. By some of the authorities it is held that Christi- 
 anity is a part of the common law of this country, and by others that 
 it is not; while another view is, that Christianity is a part of our com- 
 mon law in only a qualified sense.. 
 
 He quotes from Sedgwick's Constitutional and Statute Law as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 "Still, though Christianity is not the religion of the State, consid- 
 ered as a political corporation, it Is nevertheless interwoven into the 
 texture of our society, and is intimately connected with all our social 
 habits, and customs and modes of life." After reciting the history of 
 the law and the decisions of Courts pro and con, he declares "It will 
 thus be seen that the departure from the line of authority was of short 
 duration, and that the highest court of this State, at an early day in 
 our history, returned to the well-beaten track of judicial authority on 
 this interesting and frequently discussed question. It is too late now 
 to indulge in another departure, even if I were inclined to set aside 
 the great weight of judicial opinions by which Sunday laws have been 
 
 sustained and enforced Regarding the law from a purely secular 
 
 standpoint, the law is a proper and salutary one. It imposes no re- 
 straint upon the conscience of any member of the community; it ex- 
 acts from no person the performance of any religious rites or cere- 
 monies; it prescribes no religious faith or belief; a man may be an 
 Episcopalian, a Methodist, a Catholic, a Hebrew, or, if he sees fit, even 
 .an Infidel. He may worship one God or a plurality of gods. He may 
 be a Trinitarian or a Unitarian, or he may reject all belief in the 
 superintending care of a Divine Providence. Sunday laws leave his 
 religious belief and practices as free as the air he breathes." (Ex 
 Parte Burke, 59 Cal. 6.) 
 
 In March, 1882, the law was declared constitutional, Justices Mc- 
 Kinstry, Ross and Sharpstein dissenting. (GO Cal. 177.) Judge Thorn- 
 ton said: "Declaring the provisions of the sections referred to invalid 
 as violative of the constitution, would be to strike at the foundation 
 
174 
 
 IDAHO. 
 
 of the legislative power to determine what acts of those uot mala in 
 se shall be punished criminally, and what shall not be punished." 
 
 In concurring in this opinion Judge McKee took occasion to say 
 that "the State has not set apart Sunday for a day of rest as a religious 
 institution; nor does she impose observance of the day upon churches 
 or on church members, nor are religious commemorations or cere- 
 monies prescribed or enforced As a day of rest, Sunday is not set 
 
 apart as a holy day, but it is set apart as a legal holiday." 
 
 In this decision four judges favored the upholding of the law as 
 constitutional while three dissented. 
 
 In 1883, the legislature repealed the law, leaving the State with- 
 out a rest day law for ten years. 
 
 In 1893 a new law was enacted "to provide for a day of rest from 
 labor." It is as follows: 
 
 "1. Every person employed in any occupation of labor shall be 
 entitled to one day's rest therefrom in seven; and it shall be unlawful 
 for any employer of labor to cause his employees, or any of them to 
 work more than six days in seven; provided, however, that the provis- 
 ions of this section shall not apply to case of emergency. 
 
 "2. For the purposes of this act, the term day's rest shall mean 
 and apply to all cases, whether the employee is engaged by the day, 
 week, month, or year, and whether the work performed is done in the 
 day or night time. 
 
 "3. Any person violating the provisions of this act shall be 
 deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Cole, 722.) 
 
 IDAHO. (IQOI.) 
 
 "Stuidays and holidays" is the title of that division of the 
 Statutes of Idaho which contains the only provisions relating to 
 the first day of the week. They are found in Chapter CXXI., 
 and are as follows : 
 
 "3017. No court can be opened nor can any judicial business 
 be transacted on Sunday, on the first day of January, on the fourth 
 day of July, on Christmas, or Thanksgiving day, or on any day on 
 which the general election is held, except for the following purposes. 
 
 1. To give upon their request, instructions to a jury when de- 
 liberating on their verdict; 
 
 2. To receive a verdict or discharge a jury; 
 
 3. For the exercise of the powers of a magistrate in a criminal 
 action or in a proceeding of a criminal nature." 
 
 In civil causes orders of arrest may be made and executed, writs 
 of attachment and executions served, and procedings to recover per- 
 sonal property may be had. (p. 13.) 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE SABBATH. 
 
 The authority to enact a general Sabbath law for the entire 
 country does not belong to the government of the United States. 
 If such were the case the laws in the diiiferent States already con- 
 sidered would not exist. This is one of the powers not delegated 
 to the United States by the Constitution, but reserved to the 
 States respectively. But there is a sphere in which the National 
 Government has the exclusive right to enact such laws. The 
 District of Columbia, all possessions in which territorial gov- 
 ernment has not been established, the Panama Canal zone, all 
 government buildings, all departments of the government wher- 
 ever operated, are subject exclusively to such regulations as may 
 be made by the general government. 
 
 As to the District of Columbia. Congress has hitherto neg- 
 lected to perform its duty to enact a law pertaining to Sabbath 
 oliservance except to close saloons on that day. 
 
 ALASKA. (1900.) 
 
 The act of Congress with reference to the Sabbath in Alaska 
 is entitled "Profanation of Sunday." It is found in Chapter 8 
 and is as follows : 
 
 •'141. If any person shall keep open any store, shop, grocery, ball 
 alley, billiard room, or tippling house, for purposes of labor or traffic, 
 
 175 
 
376 INDIAN TERRITORY. 
 
 or any place of amusement, on the first day of the week, commonly 
 called Sunday or the Lord's day, such person, upon conviction thereof, 
 shall be punished by a fine not less than five nor more than fifty dol- 
 lars: provided, that the above provision shall not apply to the keepers 
 of drug stores, doctor shops, undertakers, livery-stables keepers, bar- 
 bers, butchers and bakers, and all circumstances of necessity and 
 mercy may be pleaded in defense, which shall be treated as questions 
 of fact for the jury to determine, when the offense is tried by jury." 
 .(p. 30.) 
 
 INDIAN TERRITORY. 
 
 "Sabbath Breaking"' is the title of the law of the Indian Ter- 
 ritory relating to the first day of the week, found in Chapter 19. 
 It is the same as the law of Arkansas. 
 
 A GENERAL LAW FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
 
 From time to time Congress has adopted acts for the regulat- 
 ing of all departments of the government, in which there is a 
 clause with reference to the first day of the week. This clause is 
 as old at least as an act of 1836, and was embodied in an act of 
 1898 and is as follows : 
 
 "It shall be the duty of the heads of the several Executive De- 
 partments, in the interest of the public service, to require of all clerks 
 and other employees of whatever grade or class, in their respective 
 departments, not less than seven hours of labor each day, except Sun- 
 days and days declared public holidays by law or executive order." 
 
 The exclusion of the Lord's day from the days of required 
 official duty has been the custom of the Government Depart- 
 ments always. 
 
 THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 
 
 This Department has no special regulations relating to this 
 matter, the Act of Congress quoted above being sufficient for all 
 purposes. 
 
 TREASURY DEPARTMENT. 
 
 In addition to the general law regulating all Executive De- 
 partments there are other acts applying to the Treasury Depart- 
 ment, providing for leave of absence for thirty days and declaring 
 
WAR DEPARTMENT. 177 
 
 that these thirty days shall be exclusive of "Sundays" and holi- 
 days. There are also a number of regulations covering the same 
 ground and providing for leave of absence in case of sickness, 
 and declaring that "Sundays" occurring within such a period will 
 be charged. The acting secretary writes that "from the organi- 
 zation of the Government the practice of the Treasury Depart- 
 ment has been to recognize the first day of the week, the Chris- 
 tian Sabbath, as a day of rest and cessation from labor, and all 
 public buildings occupied by that department and its dependen- 
 cies have been closed on that day." 
 
 WAR DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Title XIV. of the Revised Statutes of the United States re- 
 lates to the Army. Chapter 4 under this title relates to the Mili- 
 tary Academy. Section 1324 is as follows: 
 
 "The Secretary of War shall so arrange the course of studies at 
 the academy that the cadets shall not be- required to pursue their 
 studies on Sunday." (Vol. 1, page 933.) 
 
 General Order No. 50, dated June 12, 1899, is as follows: "In No- 
 vember, 1862, President Lincoln quoted the words of Washington to 
 sustain his own views, and announced in a general order that — 'The 
 President, Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, desires and en- 
 joins the orderly observance of the Sabbath by the officers and men 
 in the military and naval service. The importance for man and beast 
 of the prescribed weekly rest, the sacred rights of Christian soldiers 
 and sailors, a becoming deference to the best sentiment of a Christian 
 people, and a due regard for the Divine will demand that Sunday labor 
 in the Army and Navy be reduced to the measure of strict necessity.' 
 
 "The truth so concisely stated cannot be too faithfully regarded, 
 and the pressure to ignore it is far less now than in the midst of war. 
 To recall the kindly and considerate spirit of the orders issued by 
 these great men in the most trying times of our history, and to pro- 
 mote contentment and efficiency, the President directs that Sunday 
 morning inspection will be merely of the dress and general appear- 
 ance, without arms; and the more complete inspection under arms, 
 with all men present, as required in par. 9.50, A. R., 1889, will take 
 place on Saturday." 
 
 This order issued by President McKinley, is regarded as still In 
 force. 
 
 Paragraph 202, Army Regulations, 1904, is as follows: "An orderly 
 observance of the Sabbath by the officers and men in the military ser- 
 vice is enjoined. Military duty and labor on Sunday will be re- 
 .duced to the measure of strict necessity." 
 
178 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 
 
 The Chief of Engineers says that in accordance with the spirit of 
 the foregoing regulations enjoining the proper observance of the Sab- 
 bath, "It has been and still is the policy of the Engineer Department 
 to prohibit, wherever possible, Sunday labor on works under its charge. 
 Such labor is permitted only in cases of exigency or extraordinary 
 emergency, where it is actually necessary for the public interests. 
 The procedure usually followed in enforcing Sabbath observance on 
 Government work in the Engineer Department is to require, where ap- 
 plicable, the insertion in the specifications for each work a provision 
 forbidding work to be done by the contractor on Sunday, except upon 
 the written consent of the engineer officer in charge, and then only in 
 cases of extraordinary emergency." 
 
 DEPARTMENT OE JUSTICE. 
 
 This Department has no regulations concerning- the first 
 day of the week as a day of rest. 
 
 POST OFEICE DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Chapter 3 of Postal Laws and Regulations, (1903), is entitled 
 "General Provisions relating to Postoffices." Section 264 is as. 
 
 follows : 
 
 "Where mail arrives on Sundays, postoffices must be kept open for 
 an hour or more for the delivery thereof, if the public convenience re- 
 quires it. If the mail is received during the time of public worship the 
 office need not be opened till after the close of services. Offices need 
 not be opened on Sundays if no mails are received between the hour of 
 closing on Saturday and 6 p. m. Sunday. 
 
 "2. While post-offices are open on Sundays delivery of mail must 
 be made to all who apply, as well as to box holders. Postage stamps 
 may be sold; but money orders need not be issued or paid. The regis- 
 tration of mail matter and the delivery of registered matter on Sun- 
 days is left to the option of each postmaster. Special delivery mail 
 must be delivered on Sundays as well as on other days, if post-office 
 is open on Sundays. 
 
 "3. The carriers' windows at free delivery offices must be opened 
 on Sundays and holidays during the regular office hours for the de- 
 livery of naail matter." (page 117.) 
 
 Provisions for carrying the mail declare that 'The Postmaster- 
 General shall provide for carrying the mail on all post roads estab- 
 lished by law, as often as he, having due regard to productiveness and 
 other circumstances, may think proper." (U. S. Compiled Statutes, 
 Vol. 2, p. 2708, 1901.) 
 
CONGRESS AND THE MAILS. 179 
 
 It is held by the Supreme Court of the United States that "In the 
 case of mail transportation contracts, congress must be deemed the 
 principal, the Postmaster-General its agent. (American Digest, Vol. 40, 
 p. 283.) 
 
 CONGRKSS AND THE MAILS. 
 
 The Postmaster-General in 181 5 declared that the transpor- 
 tation of the United States mails on the first day of the week 
 was coeval with the Constittition, and it is probable that this was 
 true with respect to some of the most important routes. The 
 first authorization by Congress of the delivery of mails on the 
 Lord's day was on April 30, 1810. General opposition to this 
 action was manifested in all parts of the country, and it is 
 thought that it might have been rescinded but for the breaking 
 out of the war of 1812. "which made an excuse for its continu- 
 ance as a war measure." 
 
 Numerous petitions were sent to Congress in 1828-9,- urg- 
 ing that Sunday mails be discontinued. The tone of the peti- 
 tions can be discerned from the following extracts: "Your 
 Memoralists protest against the States supporting, aiding or be- 
 ing united to the Church ; and they also protest against the civil 
 power being used to trample down or persecute the Church, or 
 to weaken and destroy one Church duty." "When the Consti- 
 tution provided that Congress should pass no law establishing re- 
 ligion, it surely was not intended to vest that body with the right 
 to pass a canon desecrating one of the most sacred institutions 
 of the religion of the nation. This law is against religion." It 
 was urged that Congress received from the States no power to 
 authorize such work on the Sabbath as had always been illegal 
 in all of them, and that the law was therefore unconstitutional. 
 It was urged still further that to require any class of govern- 
 ment officers to work on the Sabbath was an infringement on 
 their rights of conscience. The Memoralists declared that the 
 measure was not only needless but also harmful, both physically^ 
 mentally and morally, both to the postmasters and to the people. 
 
i8o - CONGRESS AND THE MAILS. 
 
 and that while discarding the union of Church and State, the na- 
 tion cannot ignore the connection of morahty and the State.* 
 
 These petitions were referred to a committee of the Senate 
 of which Richard M. Johnson was the Chairman.t The report of 
 this committee is found in Senate Documents, 2d Session, 
 Twentieth Congress, Jan. 19, 1829, and is as follows : 
 
 "The Committee to whom was referred the several petitions on the 
 subject of mails on the Sabbath or 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; 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 of 
 a suspension of all public business on that day, except in cases of abso- 
 lute necessity or 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 
 sentiments exist among 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. 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 the 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 citizens 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 not their obliga- 
 tion to observe the Sabbath from the Decalogue, but regard the Jewish 
 Sabbath as abrogated. Frorh the example of Christ they have chosen 
 the first day of the week, instead of that day set apart in the Decalogue 
 
 *See, "The Sabbath for Man" by Dr. W. F. Crafts; pp .271, 274. 
 
 fAlexander Campbell, it is claimed by his biographer, was the real author of 
 this report. He declares that Mr. Johnson had neither the education nor ability to 
 write such a report, that Mr. Campbell and Mr. Johnson were warm friends, that 
 Mr. Campbell had taken a leading part in opposition to the enforcement of laws 
 against blasphemy and Sabbath breaking in Washington county, Pa., and that 
 when charged with being the author of the report he gave an evasive answer. 
 Memoirs of Ale.xander Campbell by Robert Richardson; two volumes, vol. 1, pp. 
 £36, 537. 
 
CONORE.^S AM) TUK MA U.S. i8r 
 
 for their religious devotions. These have generally regarded the 
 observance of the day as a devotional exercise, and would not more 
 readily enforce it upon others than they would secret piayer or devout 
 meditations. Urging the fact that neither their Lord nor His disciples, 
 though often censured by their accusers for a violation of the Sabbath, 
 ever enjoined its observance, they regard 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 trom 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 with enforced religious observances; and 
 though the Committee would hope that no portion of the citizens of 
 our country would willingly introduce a system of coercion in our civil 
 institutions, the example of other nations should admonish us to watch 
 carefully against its earliest indications. With these different religious 
 views the Committee is of the 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 not a religious 
 institution. Our Constitution recognizes 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 Government so long 
 as they do not invade the rights of others. t 
 
 The transportation of the mails on the first day of the week, it is 
 believed, does not interfere with rights of conscience. The petitioners 
 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 
 
 * This may be the view of some, but the true view is that the Fourth Com- 
 mandment does not specify the day cf the week to be observed, but only the propor- 
 tion of time, the seventh after six of labor. 
 
 fEven trom this inadequate statement it is clear that the Sabbath laws of our country 
 should be enforced because individual rigi ts are invaded by Sunday mails and similar 
 infractions of the law. The Supreme Court of the I'nited States has declared that 
 "With man's relation to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, 
 and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on 
 those subjcts, no interference can be permitted, provided always that the laws 
 of society designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people 
 are not intefered with. However free the exercise of religion may be, it must be 
 subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions 
 regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation." 
 (David v. Beason, 13X I". S., p. H3a. 1890. > Sabbath Laws are usually found in the Penal 
 Code and by gomrul cmscnt S.ibbath desecration is regarded as properly the subject 
 of puDitive legislation. 
 
i82 CONGRESS AND THE MAILS. 
 
 practice is a violation of the law of God. Should Congress in their 
 legislative capacity adopt the 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 con- 
 troversy; and on a point on which good citizens may honestly differ 
 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 suffered but for what 
 government denominated :he law of God. To prevent a similar train 
 of evils in this country, the Constitution has wisely withheld from our 
 government the power of defining the Divine law. It is a right reserved 
 to 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 for a political object are, in the 
 opinion of the committee, always dangerous. This first effort of the 
 kind calls for the establishment of a principle which, in the opinion of 
 the committee, would lay the foundation of dangerous innovations 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 the government will be strongly marked, if not eventually 
 controlled by the same influence. All religious depotism commences by 
 combination and influence; and when that influence begins to operate 
 upon the political institutions of a country, the civil power soon bends 
 tinder it; and the catastrophes of other nations furnish an awful warn- 
 ing 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 F'irst Day of the week is required to be occupied in official busi- 
 ness. In the transportation of the mails on that day no one agent is 
 employed many hours. Religious persons enter into the business with- 
 out violating their consciences, or imposing any restraints on others. 
 Passengers in mail stages are free to rest during the first day of the 
 ■week, or to pursue their journeys at pleasure. While the mail is trans- 
 ported on Saturday, the Jew and Sabbatarian may abstain from any 
 agency in carrying it, from conscientious scruples. While it is trans- 
 ported 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 these classes; and the committee can discover no principle on 
 which the claims of the one should be more respected than those of the 
 other, unless it s.hould 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 bearings. In this light it has 
 hitherto been considered; Congress has never legislated on the subject. 
 
CONGRESS ANT) THE MAILS. 183 
 
 It rests as it ever has done, in the legal discretion of the Postmaster 
 General, under the repeated refusals of congress to discontinue the 
 Sabbath mails. His knowledge and judgment in all concerns of that 
 department will not be questioned. His intense labors and assiduity- 
 have resulted in the highest improvement of every branch of his depart- 
 ment. It is practiced only on the great leading routes, and such others 
 as are necessary to maintain their connections. 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, and 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 that intercourse. The delay 
 of the mails one whole day in seven, v/ould require the employment of 
 special expresses at great expense, and sometimes with great uncer- 
 tainty. The commercial, manufacturing and agricultural interests of 
 our country, are so intimatsly connected as to require a constant and 
 most expeditious correspondence betwixt all our seaports, and betwixt 
 them and the most interior settlements. The. delay of the mails during 
 the Sunday would give occasion to 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 means of 
 that Department into another channel, and sinking that establishment 
 into a state of pusilanimity incompatible with the dignity of the Govern- 
 ment 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, at an expense which many are but poorly able to 
 «ncouter. To obviate these difficulties many will employ extra carriages 
 for their conveyance, and become the bearers of correspondence as more 
 ■expeditious than the mails. The stage proprietors will themselves often 
 furnish the travelers with those means of conveyance; so that the 
 effect will be ultimately only to stop the mail, while the vehicle which 
 conveys it will continue, and its passengers become the special mes- 
 sengers for conveying considerable proportion of what would otherwise 
 constitute the contents of the mail. Nor can the committee discover 
 where the system could consistently end. If the observance of a holy 
 day becomes incorporated in our institutions, shall we not forbid the 
 movement of an army; prohibit an assault in time of war; and lay 
 our injunction upon our naval officers to lie in the wind while upon 
 the ocean on that day? Consistency would seem to require it. If the 
 principle is once established that religion or religious observances shall 
 be interwoven with our legislative acts, we must pursue it to its ulti- 
 mate end. 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 i3 the settled conviction of the committee, that the only method of 
 
i84 NA VY DEPARTMENT. 
 
 avoiding these consoqnences 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 re- 
 ligious 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 its citizens however small. Despotic 
 power may invade these rights, but justice still confirms them. Let 
 the national legislation once perform an act which involves the decision 
 of a religious controversy, and it will have passed its legislative bounds. 
 The precedent will be established, and the foundation laid for that as- 
 sumption of the Divine prerogative in this country, which has been 
 the desolating scourge, to the fairest portions of the old world. Our 
 Constitution recognizes no other power than that of persuasion for en- 
 forcing religious observances. Let the professors of Christianity recom- 
 mend their religion by deeds of benevolence, by Christian meekness, by 
 lives of temperance and holiness. Let them combine their efforts to 
 instruct the ignorant, to relieve the widow and the orphan, to promul- 
 gate to the world the Gospel of the Saviour, recommending its precepts 
 by their habitual example; Government will find its legitimate object in 
 protecting them. It can not oppose them 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 which they may call on 
 Congress to enact. The Petitioners do not complain of any 4nfringe- 
 ments of their rights. They enjoy all that Christians ought to ask at 
 the hands of any government — protection from all molestation in the 
 exercise of their religious sentiments.* 
 
 Resolved, that the Committee be discharged from the further con- 
 sideration of the subject." 
 
 NAVY DEPARTMENT. 
 
 Chapter 5, under Title XIV. of the Revised Statutes of the 
 United States, rehites to the Naval Academy. Section 1526 is 
 as follows : 
 
 "The Secretary of the Navy shall arrange the course of studies and 
 the order of recitations at the Naval Academy so that the students in 
 said institution shall not be required to pursue their studies on Sunday." 
 (Vol. 1, p. 1049.) 
 
 *A more subtle and misleading document than this could scarcely be framed. 
 It abounds in evasions and misstatements. The Sunday mail service inevitably 
 either corrupts the conscience or shuts out those who refuse to be corrupted. In 
 addition to more than a hundred thousand employees, it requires the running of 
 numerous mail trains with their crews. It places the government in the attitude 
 of disobedience to God. How can Christians teach the principles of the Gospel to 
 people who have no Sabbath? What excuse ever existed for Sunday mails is takes 
 away by the telegraph. 
 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. 185. 
 
 The General Order No. 50, given above when considering 
 the regulations relating to the Army also applies to the Navy. 
 Among the Navy Regulations the following are in point: 
 
 "Article 2. The Commanders of vessels and naval stations to which' 
 chaplains are attached shall cause divine service to be performed on 
 Sunday, whenever the weather and other circumstances allow it to be 
 done; and it is earnestly recommended to all officers, seamen, and other* 
 in the naval service diligently to attend at every performance of the 
 worship of Almighty God." 
 
 Article 259, paragraph 2. "Sunday shall be observed on board of 
 all ships and at naval stations in an orderly manner. All labor shall 
 be reduced to the requirements of necessary duty. The religious tenden- 
 cies of officers and men shall be recognized and encouraged."' 
 
 The Department furnishes the following additional facts: "It is the 
 practice and custom of the service to dispence with all unnecessary 
 work on board ships on Sunday and to give the men every opportunity 
 for the use of the day for religious and such other duties as their 
 conscience may dictate. No drills or exercises of any kind except those 
 required by law, of general uiuster or reading the Articles of War, are 
 carried out on board ship on Sunday. 
 
 "It may be further stated that it is contrary to the general ])olicy 
 of the Navy Department to permit work on Sunday by civilian employes 
 at the various navy yards, except in an emergency, or where the 
 exigency of the service may require the same." 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. 
 
 In addition to the Art of Congress relating to all Executive 
 Departments of the Government, there are regulations adopted 
 by the Department for the Indian School Service, in which reli- 
 gious instruction is provided for. Under "Religious Instruction 
 in Indian Schools" Rule 9 declares that "Church and mass attend- 
 ance on Sundays, at hours agreed upon by the respective pastors, 
 will be strictly insisted upon by the school superintendent." 
 
 Under "J^utics of Field Matrons" operating in connection 
 with missions among the Indians, the loth rule requires them to 
 teach "the proper observaPiCe of the Sabbath etc." 
 
 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
 
 This Department has certain Rules and Regulations among, 
 which there is one relating to the Sabbath. It is found in B. A.. 
 I. Order No. 125. subdivision b of Rule 4 and is as follows: 
 
i86 COMMERCE AND LABOR. 
 
 "The slaughtering of animals shall be conducted on week days 
 between the hours of 6 a. m. -and 7 p. m., except in certain cases of 
 emergency, when permission to slaughter at other hours may be granted 
 by the inspector in charge. No slaughtering shall be conducted on 
 Sundays after 12 o'clock noon. Permission to make any permanent 
 departure from the above-designated hours shall be obtained from the 
 Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry." 
 
 The Department furnishes the following additional information: 
 ^'Formerly no slaughtering was permitted on Sundays, but it was found 
 that the Hebrews in the large cities were inconvenienced by this ruling 
 and the order was modified accordingly." 
 
 COMMERCE AND LABOR. 
 
 The Department of Commerce and Labor has issued no 
 orders relating to the matter of Sabbath observance. 
 
 EAWS RELATING TO INTERNA!, REVENUE, ETC. 
 
 Title XXXV. of the Revised Statutes of the United States treats of 
 "Internal Revenue." Chapter 4 is entitled "Distilled Spirits." Section 
 3238 forbids distilling and brewing on the Sabbath in these words: "No 
 malt, corn, grain, or other material shall be mashed, nor any mash 
 wort or beer brewed or mado, nor any still used by a distiller, at any 
 time between the hour of eleven in the afternoon of any Saturday and 
 the hour of one in the fornnoon of the next succeeding Monday; and 
 every person who violates the provisions of this section shall be liable 
 to a penalty of one thousand dollars." (Vol. 2, p. 2129). 
 
 In computing time in bankruptcy proceedings, the first day of the 
 week is not to be inchidod. (Vol. 22, p. 928). 
 
 OPINIONS OE THE UNITED STATES COURTS. 
 
 Opinions of the Courts of the United States are not to be 
 looked for in cases arising under any of the above laws and regu- 
 lations. Such cases do not exist. In many instances, however, 
 cases arising under State laws or municipal regulations have 
 been carried to these courts and opinions of considerable value 
 rendered. These will now be considered. 
 
 The case of Soon Hing v. Crowley arose under an ordinance 
 of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Fran- 
 cisco, California, which prohibits washing and ironing in public 
 laundries and washhouses within defined territorial limits, from 
 ten o'clock at night till six in the morning, and at any hour on 
 
OPINIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS. 187 
 
 the Lord's day. Soon Hing was arrested by Crowley, Chief of 
 Police of San Francisco, for violating this ordinance. While in 
 the custody of the officer Soon Hing applied to the Circuit Court 
 of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was 
 refused,- the judges being divided in opinion and the opinion of 
 the presiding judge controlling. The case went to the Supreme 
 Court of the United States for review. One of the points on 
 which the Circuit Court was divided was, whether the section 
 forbidding work in laundries on the Sabbath is void on the 
 ground that "it deprives a man of the right to labor at all times." 
 Justice Field wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court and on this 
 point spoke as follows : 
 
 "Laws setting aside Sunday as a day of rest are upheld, not from 
 any right of the government to legislate for the promotion of religious 
 observances, but from its right to protect all persons from the physical 
 and moral debasement which comes from uninterrupted labor. Such 
 laws have always been deemed beneficent and merciful laws, especially 
 to the poor and dependent, to the laborers in our factories and work- 
 shops and in the heated rooms of our cities; and their validity has been 
 sustained by the highest courts of the States." (113 U. S. 703, 1884). 
 
 The case of Hennington v. The State (90 Ga. 396), men- 
 tioned above on page 89 was carried to the Supreme Court 
 of the United States on the plea that the law is such a regulation 
 of interstate commerce as is forbidden to the States by the Con- 
 stitution of the United States. The opinion of the Supreme 
 Court of Georgia was upheld by the Supreme Court of the 
 United States. The following sentences are valuable : 
 
 "In our opinion there is nothing in the legislation in question which 
 suggests that it was enacted v/ith the purpose to regulate interstate 
 commerce, or with any other purpose than to prescribe a rule of civil 
 duty for all who, on the Sabbath day, are within the territorial juris- 
 -diction of the State. It is none the less a civil regulation because the 
 day on which the running of freight trains is prohibited is kept by 
 many under a sense of religious duty. The Legislature having, as will 
 not be disputed, power to enact laws to promote the order and to secure 
 the comfort, happiness and health of the people, it was within its dis- 
 cretion to fix the day when all labor, within the limits of the State, 
 works of necessity and charity excepted, should cease. It is not for 
 the judiciary to say that the wrong day was fixed, much less that the 
 Legislature erred when it assumed that the best interests of all required 
 that one day in seven should be kept for the purposes of rest from 
 ordinary labor. . . . 
 
i88 OPINIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS 
 
 "The defendant contends that the running on the Sabbath day of ' 
 railroad cars, laden with interstate freight, is committed exclusively to 
 the control and supervision of the National Government; and that, 
 although Congress has not taken any affirmative action upon the sub- 
 ject^ State legislation interrupting, even for a limited time only, inter- 
 state commerce, whatever may be its object, and however essential such 
 legislation may be for the comfort, peace and safety of the people of the 
 State, is a regulation of interstate commerce forbidden by the Consti- 
 tution of the United States. Is this view of the Constitution and of 
 the relation between the States and the General Government sustained 
 by the former decisions of this court? Is the admitted general power 
 of a State to provide by legislation for the health, the morals, and the 
 general welfare of its people, so fettered that it may not enact any 
 law whatever that relates to or affects in any degree the conduct of 
 commerce among the States? If the people of a State deem it necessary 
 to their peace, comfort and happiness, to say nothing of the public 
 health and the public morals, that one day in each week be set apart 
 by law as a day when business of all kinds carried on within the limits 
 of that State shall cease, whereby all persons of every race and con- 
 dition in life may have an opportunity to enjoy absolute rest and quiet, 
 is that result, so far as, interstate freight traffic is concerned, attainable - 
 only through an affirmative act of Congress giving its assent to such 
 legislation?" A number of cases are here quoted to show that this is 
 not true. The co;u't then said: "Local laws of the character mentioned 
 have their source in the powers wiiich the States reserved and never 
 surrendered to Congress, of providing for the public health, the public 
 morals and the public safety, and are not, within the meaning of the 
 Constitution, and considered in their own nature, regulations of inter- 
 state commerce simply because, for a limited time or to a limited extent, 
 they cover the field occupied by those engaged in such commerce." 
 (Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. Reports, 299, 1895). 
 
 Liability for damages in certain cases involving acts claimed 
 to be violations of the Sabbath was decided by the Supreme 
 Court of the United States in the case of P. W. & B. R. Co. v. 
 Phil. & liavre de Grace Steam Towboat Co. The following is a 
 statement of tlie case : 
 
 The latter company had been authorized by a statute of Maryland 
 to construct a railway bridge over the mouth of the Susquehanna River 
 at Havre de Grace. After beginning the work they abandoned it, a 
 number of piles which had been driven being cut off a few feet below 
 the surface of the water. The Towboat Superior came info collision 
 with one or more of these piles and suffered great damage. The case 
 came first before the District Court of Maryland, then before the Circuit 
 Court of the United States and finally before the Supreme Court. The 
 decision each time favored the Towboat Company. The contention of 
 the Railroad Company v/as that the vessel began its voyage on the- 
 
OPINIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS. 189 
 
 Lord's (lay, thus violating the law of Maryland, and that the company 
 was not entitled to recovor. The Court said: 
 
 "The law relating to the observance of Sunday defines a duty of a 
 citizen to the State, and to the State only. For a breach of this duty 
 he is liable to the tine or penalty imposed by the statute and nothing 
 more. Courts of justice have no power to add to this penalty the loss 
 of a ship, by the tortious conduct of another, against whom the owner 
 has committed no offence." (23 How. 219, 1859). 
 
 A railroad company receiving on Sabbath goods for shipment is 
 bound to keen them in safe custody and is liable for their destruction 
 by fire. (24 How. 247, 1860). 
 
 The case of State v. Petit, (74 Minn. 376), involving the constitution- 
 ality of the Minnesota statute, (see above page 108), was carried to 
 the Supreme Court of the United States. The opinion of the Supreme 
 Court of the State sustaining the constitutionality of the law was up- 
 held. The indictment against Mr. Petit was. keeping open a barber shop 
 on the Sabbath. The Supreme Court of the United States declared that 
 "Keeping open a barber shop on Sunday for the purpose of cutting hair 
 and shaving beards, shall not be deemed a work of necessity or charity." 
 (177 U. S. 164, 1899). 
 
 A case came before the United .States Circuit Court, Eastern 
 District, Arkansas, in 1884, founded on a promissory note issued 
 on the Lord's day in Tennessee, in which the validity of con- 
 tracts made on the Sabbath was considered. The Court held 
 that contracts valid where made are valued everywhere, and 
 that this note was valid in Tennessee. The following sentences 
 
 are of interest : 
 
 "In this country legislative authority is limited strictly to temporal 
 affairs by written constitutions. Under these constitutions there can 
 be no mingling of the affairs of Church and State by legislative 
 authority. All religions are tolerated and none is established. Each 
 has an equal right to the protection of the law, whether Christians, 
 Jews or infidels. No citizen can be required by law to do, or refrain 
 from doing, any act upon the sole ground that it is a religious duty. . . . 
 The State protects all religious, but espouses none. . . . The statute 
 then, is not a religious regulation, but is the result of a legitimate 
 exercise of the police power, and is itself a police regulation. 
 
 "Experience has shown the wisdom and necessity of having, at 
 stated intervals, a day of rest from customary toil and labor for man 
 and beast. It renews tiagging energies, prevents premature decay, 
 promotes the social virtues, tends to repress vice, aids and encourages 
 religious teachings and practice, and affords an opportunity for inno- 
 cent and healthful amusement and recreation. Neither man nor beast 
 can stand the strain of constant and unremitting toil. Such a day, when 
 
igo OPINIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS. 
 
 designated by the State, is a civil and not a religious institution."' 
 (Swan V. Swan, 21 Fed. Rep. 299, 1884). 
 
 The Supreme Court of the- United States decided a case in 1883 in- 
 volving the validity of contracts made on the first day of the week, in 
 which there were various complications. Certain agents for the Gibbs 
 & Sterrett Manufacturing Company had sold mowing and reaping 
 machines for the company in the State of Wisconsin. The agents had 
 not the right to close the contract, but it had to be ratified by the' 
 principal. The party to whom the machines were sold did not know" 
 this. The agreement was signed on the Sabbath but not delivered till 
 another day. The legality of the contract was decided negatively by 
 the Circuit Court before which the case first came in the State of Wis* 
 consin. It was carried to the Supreme Court of the United States and 
 the opinion of the Circuit Court was reversed. The following position, 
 was first afiirmed: 
 
 "The ground upon which courts have refused to maintain actions 
 on contracts made in contravention of statutes, for the observance of 
 the Lord's day is the elementary principle that one who has himself 
 participated in a violation of law cannot be permitted to assert in a 
 court of justice any right founded upon or growing out of the illegal 
 transaction." 
 
 But it was held that: 
 
 "An agreement signed by the maker on Sunday, but not delivered 
 to the other party on that day, is no violation of a statute making it 
 a penel offence to do business on the first day of the week. 
 
 "A contract made on Sunday with an agent of the other party with- 
 out his knowledge, the agent having no authority to bind his principal, 
 and ratified by the principal on another day of the week and then ex- 
 changed, is not void as a violation of a statute making it penal to do 
 business of Sunday." (Ill U. S. 597). 
 
 In the Circuit Court, W. D. Tennessee, the constitutionality 
 of Sabbath laws was sustained in 1891. In this case R. M. King 
 was indicted in the Circuit Court of Obion County, for plowing 
 on the first day of the week. Mr. King was a Seventh Day Ad- 
 ventist, and as he kept the seventh day of the week as the Sab- 
 bath, claimed exemption from the operation of the Sabbath law. 
 He was repeatedly fined for his persistent disregard of the law. 
 His neighbors had him indicted as a common nuisance, for a 
 crime at common law, to secure severer punishment for the mis- 
 demeanor than the penalty under the statute. He was tried by 
 a jury and his fine fixed at $75, and was committed to jail till 
 the fine and costs should be paid. He appealed to the Supreme 
 Court which affirmed the conviction without giving a written 
 opinion. He then filed a petition for a habeas corpus, alleging 
 
OPINIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS. 191 
 
 that he had been deprived of Hberty without due process of law^ 
 that he had been denied the equal protection of tlie law guaran- 
 teed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the 
 United States, and that he had been denied the rehgious freedom 
 guaranteed by the Constitution. The Sheriff cf t^^c county de- 
 nied the illegaHty of the imprisonment, and the proof was taken 
 before the Circuit Court of the United States, judge Hanunond 
 in deHvering the opinion of the court said : 
 
 "It is a common nuisance in Tennessee, according to its common 
 law to work on Sunday. . . We do not say that Sunday observance may 
 be compelled upon this principle, as a religious act. . . Nor do we be- 
 lieve King was wrongfully convicted, because Christianity is not a part 
 of the law of the land. . . . for it surely is; but not in the dangerous 
 sense pointed out by Mr. Jefferson and other writers following him in 
 the controversy over it. The fourth commandment is neither a part 
 of the common law or the statute, and disobedience to it is not punish- 
 able by law; and certainly the substitution of the first day of the week 
 for the seventh as a part of the commandment has not been ac- 
 complished by municipal process, and the substitution is not binding 
 as such. The danger that lurks in this application of the aphorism has 
 been noted by every intelligent writer under my observation, and all 
 agree that this commandment, either in its original form, as practiced 
 by petitioner, or in its substituted application to the first day of the 
 week, is not more a part of the common law than the doctrine of the 
 Trinity or the Apostles' Creed. Nevertheless, by a sort of factitious 
 advantage, the observers of Sunday have secured the aid of the civil 
 law, and adhere to that advantage with great tenacity, in spite of th& 
 clamor for religious freedom and the progress that has been made in 
 the absolute separation of Church and State, and in spite of the strong 
 and merciless attack that has always been ready, in the field of contro- 
 versial theology, to be made, as it has been made here, upon the claim 
 for divine authority for the change from the seventh to the first day of 
 the week. Volumes have been written upon that subject, and it is not 
 useful to attempt to add anything to it here. We have no tribunals for 
 its decision, and the efforts to extirpate the advantage above mentioned 
 by judicial process in favor of a civil right to disregard the change, 
 seem to me quite useless. The proper appeal is to the legislature. For 
 the courts cannot change that which has been done, however done, by 
 the civil law in favor of the Sunday observers. The religion of Jesua 
 Christ is so interwoven with the texture of our civilization, and every 
 one of its institutions, that it is impossible for any man, or set of men> 
 to live among us, and find exemption from its influences and restraints. 
 Sunday observance is so essentially a part of that religion that it is 
 impossible to rid our laws of it, quite as impossible as to abolish the 
 custom we have of using the English language, or clothing ourselves 
 
•192 . OPINIONS OF THE UNITED STATED COURTS. 
 
 Tvith the garments appropriate to our sex We cannot have in 
 
 individual cases a perfect observance of Sunday, according to the rules 
 of religion; and, indeed, the sects are at war with each other as to the 
 mode of observance. And yet no wise man will say that there shall 
 therefore be no observance at all. Government leaves the warring sects 
 to observe as they will, so they do not disturb each other; and as to the 
 non-observer, he cannot be allowed h'is fullest personal freedom in all 
 
 respects One may, and many thousands do, work on that day, 
 
 without complaint from any source; but if one ostentatiously labors for 
 the purpose of emphasizing his distaste for or his disbelief in the 
 custom, ho may be made to suffer for his defiance by persecutions, if 
 jou call them so, on the part of the great majority, who will compel 
 him to rest when they rest, as it does in many other instances compel 
 men to yield individual tastes to the public taste, sometimes by a 
 positive law, and sometimes by a universal public opinion and practice 
 far more potential than a formal statute. There is scarcely any man 
 who has not had to yield something to this law of the majority which 
 is itself a universal law, from which we cannot escape in the name of 
 
 equal rights or civil liberty The fact that religious belief is one 
 
 of the foundations of the custom is no objection to it, as long as the 
 individual is not compelled to observe the religious ceremonies others 
 choose to observe in connection with their rest days. As we said In the 
 outset, not one of our laws or institutions or customs is free from the 
 influence of our religion, and that religion has put our race and people 
 in the very front of all nations in everything that makes the human 
 race comfortable and useful in the world. This very principle of 
 religious freedom is the product of our religion, as all our good customs 
 are, and if it be desirable to extend that principle, to the ultimate con- 
 dition that no man shall be in the least restrained, by law or public 
 opinion, in hostility to religion itself, or in the exhibition of individual 
 eccentricities or practices of sectarian peculiarities of religious ob- 
 servances of any kind, or be fretted with laws colored by any religion 
 that is distasteful to anybody, those who desire that condition must, 
 jiecessarily, await its growth into that enlarged application. But the 
 courts cannot, in cases like this, ignore the existing customs and laws 
 of the masses." (In re King, 46 Federal Reports, 905, 1891). 
 
 On the 5th of August, 1892 (Stat, ist Sess., S2d Cong., p. 
 389), Congress passed an act "to aid in carrying out the act 
 of April 25, 1890, with reference to the World's Columbian Ex- 
 position. Section 4 of this act is as follows: 
 
 "That it is hereby declared that all appropriations herein made for, 
 or pertaining to, the World's Columbian Exposition are made upon the 
 condition that the said exposition shall not be opened to the public on 
 the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday; and if the said 
 appropriations be accepted by the corporation of the State of' Illinois, 
 known as the World's Columbian Commission, created by the act of 
 
OPINIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS. 193 
 
 •congress of April twenty-fifth, eighteen hundred and ninety, to make 
 such rules or modification of the rules of said corporation as shall re- 
 quire the closing of the exposition on the first day of the week com- 
 monly called Sunday." 
 
 "October 25, 1892, rule'; were adopted by the corporation and the 
 commission, and among them one providing that the gates should be 
 open from May 1st to October 30th, every day of the week except Sun- 
 day." 
 
 'Among the appropriations made on August 5th, 1892 was one of 
 "five million pieces of silver half dollars. The whole amount appro- 
 priated on that day amounted to two million, five hundred thousand 
 dollars. Of these souvenir half dollars there were transmitted to the 
 World's Columbian Commission 3,858,240, the remainder being re- 
 tained, for expenses of judges etc., of the Exposition,' "until said 
 World's Columbian Exposition shall have furnished to the satisfaction 
 of the Secretary of the Treasury, full and adequate security for the re- 
 turn and payment, by said World's Columbian Exposition to the 
 treasury, of the sum of five hundred and seventy thousand, eight hun- 
 dred and eighty dollars, on or before October first, eighteen hundred and 
 ninety-three; and until such security shall have been furnished by said 
 World's Columbian Exposition, this appropriation or any portion there- 
 of, shall not be available." 
 
 The Board of Directors of the World's Columbian Exposition chose 
 t-o view this as a breach of fait:i on the part of the United States 
 Government, a.nd "on the 12 of May 1893 the Board of Directors resolved 
 • to open the grounds but not the buildings, on Sunday." On May 16th it 
 was resolved to open both the buildings "during the Sundays of the ex- 
 ;position period," and to amend the rules accordingly. At a meeting of 
 the World's Columbian Commission held on May 22d, 1893 majority and 
 minority reports were presented on the amended rule. By a vote of 
 29 to 28 the Commission refused to modify the rule as amended. 
 
 To avoid confusion it should be stated that the Commission was 
 a national body, and the directors were a local board accountable to 
 the Commission. The first case before the courts was brought by Cling- 
 man, a stockholder, who filed a bill in the Superior Court of Cook 
 County, to restrain the authorities from closing the Exposition on the 
 Sabbath. The order was issued, but was afterwards reversed. 
 
 Next the Attorney General of the United States authorized the 
 United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois to file a bill 
 In the Federal Court in the name of the United States to restrain the 
 ofiicers of the exposition from throwing open the gates of the expo- 
 sition on the Lord's day. The case was heard by Circuit Judges Woods 
 and Jenkins, and District Judge Grosscup. The Circuit Judges granted 
 the temporary order. District Judge Grosscup dissenting. Judge Woods 
 dlclared that "the government has possession of the grounds, has prop- 
 erty*there and has pecuniary interests in imported goods subject to 
 •duty," and therefore has the right "to seek relief in a court of equity. 
 
194 OPINIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS. 
 
 Judge Jenkins held th^t the gift of $2,500,000 "upon condition that if 
 the gift were accepted the exposition should be closed on Sunday," con- 
 stituted a charitable gift upon condition, which condition is enforceable- 
 in equity. Judge Jenkins in upholding the constitutionality of the act 
 of congress, said: "It is said that this legislation by congress is with- 
 out the power of congress; that it is unconstitutional; that it seeks to 
 establish religious tests. I cannot concur in the objection. Legislation 
 with respect to the first day of the week has nothing to do with the 
 matter of religious tests or the compulsion of a particular religious be- 
 lief or service. It is founded upon the necessities of the human race, 
 as taught by experience, the needed rest which human beings require 
 from the avocations of six days, labor; and it is justified by that ex- 
 perience, outside of and irrespective of any question of creed or any 
 question of religion; and all that the laws seek to do — the laws of the 
 several states which have existed almost from the existence of the 
 States— is to provide for that needed rest, and to provide for non-inter- 
 ruption in that rest and in such religious services in which any citizen 
 may choose to indulge. It is not an imposition upon any one of com- 
 pulsion in respect to religious belief, or in respect to attendance at 
 church. It provides simply for the protection and for the peace of 
 those who may choose to attend church, that they shall not be inter- 
 rupted by labor on that day." (United States v. World's Columbian .Ex- 
 position. 56 Feb. 630, 1893). 
 
 This case was appealed and came before the Circuit Court of Ap- 
 peals, Seventh Circuit, which rendered an opinion, dissolving the in- 
 junction, July 26, 1893. This means, not that the gates may not be 
 closed, but that the proper course was by action at law, not by injunc- 
 tion proceeding in a court of equity. 
 
 The position of Judge Jenkins as to the jurisdiction of the United 
 States was denied. It was declared that "congress had the right to 
 direct the gates to be closed on any day of the week, and has given such 
 direction in the appropriation acts of 1892. But in that legislation con- 
 gress did not affect to be acting in the exercise of the police power, or 
 as a matter of administrative detail upon the theory of absolute con- 
 trol." In reversing the decision of the lower court it was said, "we 
 can discover no tenable ground excepting the case from the ordinary 
 rule which requires, in order to the exercise of jurisdiction in 
 chancery, some injury to property, whether actual or prospective, some 
 invasion of property or civil rights; some injury, irreparable in its 
 nature, and which cannot be redressed at law. The application of that 
 rule is fatal to the maintenance of the order under review." (World's 
 Columbian Exposition v. United States, 56 Fed. 654, 1893). 
 
 While there is much that is satisfactory in the attitude of the 
 Government of the United States on the Sabbath question, there 
 
OPINIONS OF THE UNITE I i STATES COURTS. 
 
 195 
 
 is also much that is open to criticism. The truth is that we have; 
 in this investigation overwhehning evidence that within the civil 
 and political sphere there must be radical reform to save the 
 Sabbath as a civil institution. 
 
CHAPTER VIIL 
 
 THE FIVE-FOLD BASIS FOR SABBATH LAWS. 
 
 No institution among civilized men is the subject of more 
 frequent, more zealous and more protracted controversy than the 
 Sabbath. There is no aspect of it that is not made a matter of 
 dispute. Its orgin, its perpetuity, the day of the week on which 
 it occurs, the manner of its observance, its place in civil life, to- 
 gether with the right of the States to enact laws for its protection, 
 are all questions over which there have been sharp debates. 
 
 Our special theme is the place of the Sabbath in civil life. 
 In the discussion of it all other aspects of the general question 
 can receive only incidental consideration. 
 
 In the present stage of the controversy about the Sabbath, 
 no other division of the general question stands so much in 
 need of calm and thorough investigation. No investigation re- 
 lating to the whole question will be more helpful to the right 
 understanding of the principles involved, or lead more surely to 
 the proper solution of the problem as to Sabbath laws than an 
 investigation of these laws themselves and of the judicial opin- 
 ions rendered under them. There is a general misapprehension 
 of the nature of these laws and of the constitutional grounds on 
 which they rest. Their best vindication is a full and accurate 
 presentation of their character and of the grounds on which the 
 courts sustain their constitutionality. 
 
 To assist in obtaining at one glance a comprehensive view of 
 
 196 
 
THE FIVE-FOLD BAiJS FOR SABBATH LAWS. 197 
 
 our Sal^bath laws and the grounds on which their constitution- 
 ality is sustained, this chapter will present a summary of the 
 preceeding investigations. 
 
 In the study of other aspects of the question, such as the di- 
 vine appointment of the Sabbath and the perpetuity of the 
 Fourth Commandment, the day to be observed and the manner of 
 observing it, the Scriptures constitute the principal authority to 
 which appeal is to be made. But after these questions are set- 
 tled, even if the settlement should receive unanimous approval 
 (which unhappily is not the case), there still remain for settle- 
 ment such questions as the right and duty of the State to enact 
 rest-day laws, and the proper boundaries of the prohibitions and 
 requirements of such laws. It is true that the Scriptures clearly 
 teach that the State is under obligation to keep the Sabbath by 
 resting its machinery on that day, and that it should safeguard 
 the peace and quiet of the day by compelling the cessation of 
 worldly employments and recreations. But in this country with 
 its heterogeneous population this view of the authoritative teach- 
 ing of Scripture does not receive universal assent. Some deny 
 the perpetual obligation of the law of the Sabbath, and with this 
 denial they would demolish all authority for civil Sabbath laws. 
 Others admit the perpetuity of the Sabbath, but deny that it has 
 any claim upon the State for protection. Others hold that the 
 Sabbath law has been repealed and the Sabbath as an institution 
 abolished, but that the first day of the week is to be celebrated 
 in honor of Christ's resurrection, not as a Sabbath appointed by 
 God, but as a semi-holiday appointed by men. While this class 
 do not oppose all "Sun(la\" legislation they believe such legis- 
 lation should be exceedingly lenient. Others would attach no 
 sanctity whatever to the da\- and would have it set apart by law 
 merely as a holiday, no legal compulsion, however, to be em- 
 ployed to enforce its observance any more than in the case of 
 other holidays, but ever}' one being allowed to seek his own 
 pleasure and do his own works, regardless of the annoyance he 
 may occasion to others. 
 
 These conflicting views concerning the ."^aljbath and Sab- 
 bath laws have been productive of untold harm. The Supreme 
 Court of New^ Hampshire, in Allen v. Deming. spoke as follows 
 with reference to this variety of opinion : 
 
198 CLASSIFICATION OF STATES. 
 
 "In the judgment of many persons, such a law is impolitic, 
 and ought never to have been enacted, and they easily reach the 
 illogical result, that therefore it should be disregarded by those 
 whose duty it would otherwise be to enforce it, or at least great 
 astuteness may be properly exercised to defeat its operation. The 
 law is alleged to be difficult in its application and unjust in its 
 effects." "Some tribunals even have seemed to consider it as a 
 law which had better be suffered to pass in silence, upon the 
 ground substantially that it had been repealed bv public opin- 
 ion." (14 N. H. 133, 1843.) 
 
 In the midst of this confusion and conflict about Sabbath 
 laws where shall we look for light? To what umpire shall we 
 appeal for the settlement of the points in dispute? No one 
 class of citizens considered as a fragment of our population and 
 authorized to speak for none but themselves, has the right to 
 give the final authoritative answer. Why not go to the State 
 itself for the answer? Why not examine the laws themselves 
 and the opinions of the courts handed down in cases arising 
 under these laws? If these voices are listened to, misapprehen- 
 sions will be removed, prejudice will vanish, and opposition will 
 be seen to be groundless. 
 
 We cannot avoid this legal investigation even if we would. 
 Opponents of the law have chosen the field on which they pro- 
 pose to wage the warfare, they have thrown down the gage of 
 battle, and there is no alternative but to yield our Sabbath laws 
 or meet and defeat the antagonists on their chosen ground. 
 
 CIvASSlFlCATlON Ol' STATES. 
 
 With respect to the character of their Sabbath laws or the 
 non-existence of such laws the States and Territories may be 
 divided into five classes as is shown in preceeding chapters. 
 
 The first class is composed of those whose laws are framed 
 according to the British model and prohibit on the Lord's day 
 labor, business or work of one's ordinary calling only. This 
 class includes Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, Rhode Island 
 and South Carolina. 
 
 In the second class are to be placed all those whose Sab- 
 bath laws contain strong and comprehensive prohibitory clauses 
 
CLASSIFICATION OF STATES. 199 
 
 'lorbidding labor, business, amusements, fishing, hunting, etc., 
 and make few exceptions to the operation of the law besides 
 works of necessity and charity. This class includes Arkansas, 
 ■Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Indian Territory, Iowa, Kansas, 
 Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, 
 Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee and Utah. 
 
 The third class embraces those whose prohibitory clauses 
 are materially weakened by making many exceptions besides 
 works of necessity and charity. Some of these exceptions are 
 here noted. Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Texas, Vermont, 
 Virginia and West Virginia make an exception of railroads. 
 New Jersey, excepts Sunday trains and legal notices in Sunday 
 newspapers. Massachussets and New York permit the sale of 
 tobacco, the printing and sale of newspapers, and the latter 
 State permits also the sale of fruit and confectionery. Minneso- 
 to allows the printing and sale of newspapers. The Wyoming 
 law makes exceptions of newspapers, railroads, telegraph com- 
 panies, news depots, farmers, mechanics, furnaces, smelters, glass 
 works, venders of ice cream, milk, fresh meat and bread. The 
 law of Louisiana excepts newspapers and printing offices, book 
 stores, public and private markets, bakeries, dairies, railroads, 
 theaters and other places of amusement. 
 
 The fourth class includes those States the prohibitory 
 clauses of whose Sabbath laws are inherently weak. The laws 
 of Colorado, Illinois and New Mexico prohibit on the Lord's day 
 only such labor and amusements as disturb congregations and 
 ■families. Business is not mentioned. New Hampshire forbids 
 such secular business or labor as disturbs others. Montana pro- 
 hibits neither labor nor trade. Nebraska does not prohibit 
 trade. Oregon does not prohibit labor. Washington does not 
 prohibit labor and weakens the clause prohibiting crimes against 
 the public peace by adding after the enumeration of "riot, fight- 
 ing or offering to fight, horse-racing, or dancing." the clause, 
 "^'whereby any worshipping assembly or private family is dis- 
 turbed." 
 
 The fifth class embraces those that have no Sabbath laws. 
 Tiiis class includes Arizona, California and Idaho. 
 
200 THELR CONSTITUTION A LTY IN DISPUTE. 
 
 THEIR CONSTITUTIONALITY IN DISPUTE. 
 
 The question of the constitutionality of our Sabbath laws:- 
 has often been in dispute before our courts, both State and Fed- 
 eral In these disputes opponents appeal to both the State and 
 the National Constitution. The clauses upon which reliance is- 
 placed are those that guarantee religious liberty. The purport 
 of these clauses as found in all our State Constitutions is the 
 same. A few extracts will show their character. The Declara- 
 tion of Rights in the Constitution of Maryland says "That as it is 
 the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he 
 thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled 
 to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no persom 
 ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on ac- 
 count of his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his re- 
 ligious practice, unless under the color of religion, he shall dis- 
 turb the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall in- 
 fringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil 
 or religious rights ; nor ought any person to be compelled tO' 
 frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to main- 
 tain, any place of worship, or ministry." 
 
 The Constitution of the State of New York declares that 
 "The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and 
 worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be 
 allowed in this State to all mankind ; . . . . but the liberty of 
 conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to ex- 
 cuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with 
 the peace or safety of this State." 
 
 The Constitution of Pennsylvania declares that "All men 
 have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God 
 according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can 
 of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of 
 worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent ; no hu- 
 man authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere 
 with the rights of conscience and no preference shall ever be- 
 given by law to any religious establishments or modes of wor- 
 ship." 
 
 Similar provisions are found in the constitutions of all the 
 States. In many a conflict they have been appealed to before 
 
SABBATH LA WS CONSTITUTIONAL. 201 
 
 courts of law to establish the unconstitutionality of Sabbath laws. 
 A sentence in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of 
 the United States is also sometimes appealed to for the same 
 purpose. It is as follows : "No State shall make or enforce any 
 law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens 
 of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of 
 life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to 
 any person Avithin its jurisdiction the equal protection of the 
 laws." 
 
 In some cases^ Section 10, Article i, of the Constitution of 
 the United States, which prohibits the States from passing any 
 law impairing the obligation of contracts, is used as the basis of 
 an argument against the contitutionality of the Sabbath law. 
 
 It has been contended, on the strength of these provisions 
 that all laws are unconstitutional which prohibit on the Sabbath 
 ordinary labor and business, the keeping open of saloons, the 
 operating of theaters, fishing, hunting, playing base ball, etc. 
 
 SABBATH LAWS CONSTITUTIONAL. 
 
 If it could be successfully maintained that Sabbath laws vio- 
 late constitutional provisions safeguarding property, contracts 
 and liberty, they would of necessity disappear from our statute 
 books. But with singular unanimity the constitutionality of 
 these laws has been sustained by our courts. The grounds on 
 which these opinions rest are not always the same. Neither do 
 our judges always make the best use of the strongest grounds on 
 which the constitutionality of these laws can be maintained. But 
 it is a fact that should command general attention, and lead to 
 serious thought even those who would sacrilegiously break down 
 all Sabbath legislation, that VN^ith scarcely an exception the con- 
 stitutionality of our Sabbath laws has been upheld by the Courts. 
 The grounds on which these opinions of the courts rest are 
 worthy of most careful study. 
 
 FIRST GROUND TlIEY INVADE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. 
 
 In a preceding paragraph constitutional provisions were 
 quoted upon which reliance has been placed in efforts to secure 
 
:202 THEY INVADE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. 
 
 opinions of courts against the constitutionality of Sabbath laws. 
 The argument used is that when the law stops ordinary worldly 
 labor, closes a store or a saloon, shuts the doors of a theater, 
 prevents a horse race or a game of base ball, on the first day of 
 the week, it is interfering with that liberty which is guaranteed by 
 the Constitution.* 
 
 For the purpose of the present discussion, human actions 
 may be divided into three classes: (i) those which conscience 
 approves and requires ; (2) those which conscience condemns 
 and forbids ; (3) those about which conscience gives no authori- 
 tative decision either way, and whether done or not done no re- 
 grets are experienced. To one or another of these classes all 
 acts dealt with by Sabbath laws belong. It is quite clear that 
 if these laws prohibit men from doing what conscience requires 
 ■or seek to constrain them to do what conscience forbids, rights 
 are invaded and the constitution violated. Let us inquire 
 whether Sabbath laws do either of these things. The answer is 
 given in the opinions of our courts. "The Sunday law was not 
 intended to compel people to go to church, or to perform any 
 religious act, as an expression of preference for any particular 
 •creed or sect." (State v. Ambs, 20 Mo. 214.) "These laws do 
 not prohibit or interfere with the worship of God on any other 
 day than Sunday, nor do they compel any one to worship on 
 'Sunday." (Judefind v State, 78 Md. 510.) 
 
 Sometimes the plea is advanced that legislators are 
 ■prompted by religious motives in the enactment of these laws 
 and that this is an unwarranted mingling of things civil and re- 
 ligious, and that on account of these motives such laws invade 
 
 ♦Among the opinions of Courts declaring that there is no invasion of rights and 
 consequently no infraction of the Constitution by our Sabbath laws, the folowing 
 are of more fhan ordinary merit: Shover v. State, 10 Ark., 259, 1850; Scales v. 
 The State, 47 Ark., 476, 1S86; Gunn v. The State, 89 Ga., 341, 1892; 
 Johns V. The State. 78 Ind., 332, 1870; Kilgour v. Miles and Gold- 
 smith, 6 G. & J. (Md.), 268, 1834; Judefind v. State, 78 Md., 510, 1894; 
 Allen V. Deming, 14 N. H., 133, 1843; Specht v. Commonwealth, 8 Pa., 312, 1848; 
 
 ■Commonwealth v. Nesbit, 34 Pa., 398, 1859; Frolickstein v. Mayor of Mobile, 40 
 Ala., 725, 1867; Commonwealth v. Has, 122 Mass., 40, 1877; Lindenmuller v. The 
 People, 33 Barb., 584, (N .Y.), 1861; City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin, 2 
 Strobhart, 508 (S. C), 1846; Gabel v. Houston, 29 Texas, 335, 1S67; Albrecht v. 
 The State, 8 Texas, 313, 18S0; Adams v. Gray, 19 Vt., 358, 1847; The State v. B. & 
 
 ■0. R. R. Co., 15 W. Va., 362, 1879; State v. Ambs, 20 Mo., 214, 1854; State v. Powell, 
 58 O. R. 324, 1898; Richmond v. Moore, 107 111., 429, 1883; State ex rel. Walker & 
 
 -Mertz V. Judge, 39 La., 132, 1887; Ex parte Burke, 59 Cal., 6, 1881. 
 
SABBATH LA WS PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS. 203 
 
 the freedom of those who do not believe in them. It may be 
 readily conceded that such motives exist. No such institution 
 as the Sabbath could exist apart from religion. Sabbath laws 
 are scarcely conceivable apart from religious motives. But the 
 motives of the lawmakers are not forced upon the consciences of 
 those who are required to obey. Doubtless there are many laws 
 against vice and immorality enacted from religious motives. But 
 the subjects of these laws are still left free as to conscience. 
 What the law demands is obedience. It does not aim to impose 
 •motives upon men's minds. It is a weak cause that pleads the 
 religious liberty clauses of our constitutions as a defense of 
 worldly labor, business and amusement on the Sabbath. The 
 'Consciences of Sabbath breakers may not approve of Sabbath 
 laws, but it is not conscience that urges men to engage in labor 
 and trade, or to attend theaters, horse races and athletic sports 
 •on the Lord's day. Neither is any one harassed with compunc- 
 tions of conscience or feelings of remorse if he fails through 
 compulsion or otherwise to do these things. No one is com- 
 pelled by the Sabbath law to do what he does not approve. He 
 is only restrained from doing some things which he does approve 
 and the State does not. There are still many other things in 
 perfect accord with his secular views which the law does not for- 
 bid. He may spend the day in reading infidel works or works 
 •wholly lacking in the religious clement ; he may attend infidel lec- 
 tures; he may do scores of things that are not religious, and the 
 iaw is silent. All that it demands is a measure of outward re- 
 spect for an institution that holds a prominent place in the minds 
 of the great body of the people. 
 
 To regard such a la\V as, an invasion of the religious 
 rights and liberty of those who have little or no religion requires 
 .an unwarranted stretch of the meaning of terms. 
 
 SECOND GROUND — SABBATH LAWS PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS. 
 
 Having shown that these laws are not in conflict with the 
 •constitutional provisions that safeguard religious liberty, it is 
 
204 SABBA TH LA WS PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS. 
 
 in order to show you that they are necessary for the preservation 
 of certain rights.'" 
 
 Civil government is the institution of rights. One chief ob- 
 ject of its existence is to protect the rights of all classes. 
 
 It is generally conceded in Christian lands that all men have 
 the right to rest one day in every week. Even in the State of 
 California which has had no real Sabbath law since 1883, a rest 
 day law has recently been enacted designed to guarantee to all 
 one day's rest out of every seven without specifying any one day,, 
 but allowing this to be determined by circumstances. Cessa- 
 tion from labor one day in the week is a right to be protected 
 by law. The plea has been made, however, that we do not need 
 a law telling us when to rest or protecting us in the enjoyment 
 of the right. It is said that those who feel the need of rest wilt 
 take it without such a law. Whatever measure of truth there 
 may be in this with respect to people who are able to control 
 their own time, it is not true with respect to the vast army ot em- 
 ployees who are dependent upon capitalists for employment. 
 Multitudes of employees in mills and factories, on railroad trains 
 and street cars, and also in the mail service of the United States, 
 under existing laws, are deprived of their Sabbath rest, not be- 
 cause they prefer to labor seven days in the week, but because 
 they must, or give up their positions. The Supreme Court of 
 Minnesota stated the situation with precision when it declared 
 that "labor is in a great degree dependent upon capital, and un- 
 less the exercise of power which capital affords is restrained, 
 those who are obliged to labor will not possess the freedom for 
 rest which they Avould otherwise e?$ercise." 
 
 If the vast multitudes of our population popularly styled the 
 laboring classes were fully aroused to their own interests they 
 would prescribe as one of the conditions of their employment one 
 day for rest in every seven, except in cases of necessity. This 
 
 * Among the opinions of Courts maintaining this position the folowing may be 
 studied with proflt: State v. Miller, 68 Conn., 373, 1896; George v. George, 47 N. H., 
 27, 1866; Johnston v. Commonwealth, 22 Pa., 102, 1853; Sparhawk v. Union Passen- 
 ger Railway Co., 54 Pa., 401, 1867; State v. Petit, 74 Minn., 376, 1898; Stae v. Wil- 
 liams, 1 Vroom (N. J.), 1862; Lindenmuller v. The People, 33 Barb. 548, 1861; The 
 State V. B. & O. R. R. Co. ,15 W. Va., 362, 1879; Ray v. Callett and Buek, 12 B. M., 
 582 (Ky.), 1851 Stae v. Ambs, 20 Mo., 214, 1854; The State v. O'Rourke, 35 Neb., 
 614, 1892. 
 
SABBATH LA WS PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS. 205 
 
 •should be one of the demands made by all labor organizations. 
 They should appeal to the law to protect them in this right. 
 But while these organizations make many demands, and while 
 laborers have inaugurated strikes to enforce these demands, 
 in all the annals of these proceedings as prepared by the Com- 
 missioner of Labor, there have been only two or three strikes 
 because of Sunday labor. 
 
 But capitalists themselves are not always independent in 
 this matter. The owners of mills and factories, the proprietors 
 of barber shops as well as those engaged in certain mercantile 
 pursuits, often feel compelled by circumstances to carry on their 
 different enterprises on the Lord's day unless all who are en- 
 -gaged in the same calling are constrained by law to desist. In 
 the Minnesota Supreme Court opinion just quoted there is a par- 
 agraph that covers such cases. The Court said, "If the law was 
 not obligatory upon all, and those who desire to do so were 
 permitted to engage in their usual vocations on Sunday, others 
 engaged in the same kind of labor, might, against their wishes, 
 be compelled by the laws of competition in business to do like- 
 wise." 
 
 But there are other rights than the mere right to rest from 
 secular labor protected by Sabbath laws. There is the right to 
 worship God without disturbance. Our rights of conscience 
 are only partially secured by a law that protects us in the right 
 to rest if the quietness of the day is not protected so as to make 
 worship possible by laying the restraining hand of law upon all 
 secular employments. On this point the Supreme Court of 
 Pennsylvania, in Johnston v. Commonwealth, has said, *Tt would 
 he a small boon to the people of Pennsylvania to declare their in- 
 defeasible right to worship God according to the dictates of their 
 ■own consciences amid the din and confusion of secular employ- 
 ments, and with desecrations on every hand of what they consci- 
 entiously believe to be hallowed time." Of like import is the 
 language of the Supreme Court of Missouri in The State v. 
 Ambs, when in speaking of the motives of those who adopted 
 the Sabbath law it was said, "They deemed a statute compelling 
 the observance of Sunday necessary to secure a full enjoyment of 
 the rights of conscience. How could those who conscientiously 
 believed that Sunday is hallowed time, to be devoted to the wor- 
 
2o5 AS POLICE REG ULA TIONS. 
 
 ship of God, enjoy themselves in its observance amidst scenes- 
 by which the day was desecrated which they conscientiously be- 
 lieved to be holy?" 
 
 THIRD GROUND AS POLICE REGULATIONS, SABBATH LAWS 
 
 PROTECT THE PUBLIC WET.FARE. 
 
 The boundary line between the police power and some other 
 powers of the State has never been definitely drawn. It has been 
 drawn with sufficient precision, however, for our present purpose. 
 It is conceded by all writers on the subject that the police power 
 includes the power and the right to protect the public health, 
 the public safety and order, and the public morals. 
 
 With few exceptions our State courts have been called upon 
 to decide whether or not the Sabbath law is constitutional. 
 With scarcely an exception the law has been sustained as a police 
 regulation.* 
 
 But what is involved in these numerous opinions? Far 
 more than appears from a mere casual perusal of them. Some 
 of them betray a studied efifort to conceal certain facts. For 
 example, frequent use is made of the expression "mere police 
 regulation," or other expressions of like import, as though such 
 regulations do not possess the dignity and importance of laws 
 relating to the tarifif, the coinage of silver or the building of bat- 
 tleships. But police regulations are for the public welfare, and 
 the first item is the public health. Frequently the courts tell us 
 that mankind has learned by experience that cessation from la- 
 
 * The following list of cases is of value in the study of this ground: 
 State V. Miller, 68 Conn., 373, 1896; Hall v. The State, 4 Del., 132, 1844; Neal at 
 al. V. Crew, 12 Ga., 93, 1852; Salter et al. v. Smith, 55 Ga., 244, 1875; Hennington v. 
 The state, 90 Ga., 396, 1892; Specht v. Commonwealth, 8 Pa., 312, 1848; Colton v. 
 Huey & Co., 4 Ala., 56, 1842; O'Donnell et als. v. Sweny, 5 Ala., 467, 1843; People 
 V. Belet, 99 Mich., 151, 1893; Scougale v. Sweet, 124 Mich., .311, 1900; State v. Petit, 
 74 Minn., 376, 1898; Lindenmuller v. The People ,33 Barb., 584, 1861; City Council 
 of Charleston v. Benjamin, 2 Strobhart (S. C), 508, 1846; Norfolk & Western R. R. 
 Co. V. Commonwealth, 88 Va., 95, 1892; N. & W. R. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 93 
 Va., 749, 1896; The State v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 15 W. Va., 362, 1879;Bloom v. Rich- 
 ards, 2 Ohio, 387, 1853; McGatrich v. Wason, 4 O. S., 566, 1855; Mayor of Nash- 
 vile V. Linch, 12 Lee (Tenn.), 499, 1883; Heinssen V. State, 4 Coi., 228, 1890; Scan- 
 non V. The City of Chicago, 40 111., 146, ; State ex rel. Walker & Mertz v. 
 
 Judge, 39 La., 132, 1887; Ex Parte Andrews, 18 Cal., 679, 1861; Soon Hing v. Crowly, 
 113 U. S., 703, 1884; Swan v. Swan, 21 Fed.-Rep., 299, 1884; 
 
AS POLICE REG ULA TIONS. 207 
 
 bor one day in seven is necessary for the preservation of health. 
 But the truth is that civiHzed nations were resting one day in 
 seven before they thought of inquiring into the effects of the 
 custom on health. It is true, however, tliat scientific investiga- 
 tions in recent years prove that the custom is absoKitely neces- 
 sary to the pubHc health, and thus science confirms divine wis- 
 dom from a sanitary point of view. 
 
 The public safety is the next thing involved in the police 
 power. The opinions of Courts touching this matter plainly de- 
 clare that the safety and order of the public are placed in jeop- 
 ardy by allowing on the Sabbath some things that are legal on 
 other days. By general consent things that are in themselves 
 immoral, such as gambling, drunkenness, fighting, etc., are con- 
 sidered worse and more injurious to the public welfare if in- 
 dulged in on Sabbath than on other days. Hence there are 
 special laws in many States forbidding all such things on the 
 Sabbath. But what makes the difiference? It must be some- 
 thing about the day. The State recognizes its own need of mor- 
 ality and the utility of the Sabbath in cultivating it. While the 
 police power of the State does not include the power to drive 
 men to church, the State recognizes the fact that those who will 
 not go and get the benefits there obtainable, shall do as little 
 harm as possible by carrying on operations in conflict with, and 
 rivals of, the religious services of the church. 
 
 This leads to the consideration of the public morals, v^rhich 
 is the next thing involved in the police power. To get this mat- 
 ter clearly before the mind a few expressions from the opinions 
 of courts will prove helpful. In his defense of the Sabbath law 
 of New York Judge Allen, in delivering the opinion of the Su- 
 preme Court in the case of Lindenmuller v. The People, de- 
 clared that Christianity, as the religion of the people of the State, 
 and as furnishing the best sanctions of moral and social obliga- 
 tions, is entitled to protection. He declared further that the 
 public peace and welfare are greatly dependent upon this protec- 
 tion, and that the Sabbath is one of the institutions to which it 
 should be extended. The Supreme Court of Ohio in 1898, in 
 the State v. Powell, in upholding the Sabbath law, declared that 
 if there were no such regularly recurring periods of rest, there is 
 
.2o8 THE SABBATH AS A CIVIL INSTITUTION. 
 
 reason to believe that the masses would become morbid in mind, 
 crime would multiply and -degeneracy likely ensue. 
 
 F'OURTH GROUND THE SABBATH AS A CIVIL INSTITUTION IS 
 
 ENTITLED TO PROTECTION. 
 
 The significance of the proposition that the Sabbath is a 
 civil institution should be difinitely fixed. One of the principal 
 objections to all Sabbath laws assumes that it is wholly an ec- 
 clesiastical institution, like baptism and the Lord's Supper, and 
 that laws for its protection constitute a mingling of the afifairs 
 of Church and State. But Christians should be protected in 
 their right to observe baptism and the Lord's Supper and other 
 religious ordinances. In the very nature of the case, however, 
 such ordinances can never become civil institutions where 
 Church and State are not united. It is different in the case of 
 the Sabbath. The term "Sabbath" denotes primarily not a day 
 "but an institution. It means "rest" or "cessation." The insti- 
 tution of the Sabbath is the institution of rest or cessation. To 
 say that this is a civil and political institution means that the 
 rest or cessation is to take place in the civil and political life. It 
 is not in the esslesiastical sphere that activity ceases on that day. 
 Christians are not supposed to take a rest from religious activity 
 one day in seven, and that on the Lord's day. It is on the Sab- 
 bath that we look for the greatest measure of activity in the 
 church. It is especially in the civil and political spheres that the 
 rest or cessation is to be looked for. We are to rest or cease 
 from activity in the civil and political spheres so as to make ac- 
 tivity possible in the ecclesiastical sphere. It is largely the same 
 people who are found in both and cessation from activity in the 
 one is essential to activity in the other. 
 
 It is of necessity that the Sabbath becomes a civil and po- 
 litical institution in all lands where Christianity becomes the 
 prevalent religion. One of three supposable results will follow 
 the Christianizing of a people, (i) They may wholly separate 
 themselves from civil and political life so as to live in the con- 
 sistent observance of Christian institutions. (2) They may 
 continue in all civil and political relations, living in vio- 
 lation of Christian laws and usages where there is con- 
 
THE SABBATH AS A CIVIL IXSTITUT/ON. 209 
 
 ■flict. (3) They may conform the usages of civil and politi- 
 cal life to the Christian standard. The first is possible only to 
 a limited degree. Even if it were vi^holly possible it should be 
 regarded as only a temporary expedient to maintain consistency 
 and to secure reformation. The second is wholly inconsistent 
 with Christianity and will be repudiated by all right-minded peo- 
 ple, however common it may be in practical life. The third is 
 the end to be aimed at, however necessary it may be at any time 
 to adopt the first, and however popular it may be to practice the 
 second. 
 
 The Sabbath is, therefore, a Christian institution which of 
 necessity becomes a civil institution in so far as it requires ces- 
 sation one day in seven from worldly employments and recre- 
 
 ^ations.* 
 
 A few sentences from some of the opinions will add force 
 to the argument. Judge Allen, in giving the opinion of the Su- 
 preme Court of New York in the Lindenmuller case, said, "The 
 Christian Sabbath is one of the civil institutions of the State, and 
 to which the business and duties of life are, by the common law, 
 made to conform and adapt themselves. The same cannot be 
 said of the Jewish Sabbath or the day observed by the follow- 
 ers of any other religion The existence of the Sabbath day 
 
 ^as a civil institution being conceded, as it must be, the right of 
 the legislature to control and regulate it and its observance is a 
 necessary sequence." 
 
 The Supreme Court of Minnesota, in 1875, '" State v. Lud- 
 wig, declares that "All the authorities concur that the legislature 
 may by law establish, as a civil institution, the first day of the 
 week as a day of rest, and may prohibit upon it, the performance 
 
 * The Courts are unanimous in this judgment as will appear from the folowlng 
 list of cases: Shover v. State, 10 Ark., 239, 1830; Karvisch vs. Tile Mayor and Coun- 
 cil of Atlanta, 44 Ga., 205, 1871; Hennington v. The State, 90 Ga., 396, 1892; Specht 
 T. Commonwealth, 8 Pa., 312, 1848; Sparhawk v. Union Passenger Railway Co., 54 
 Pa., 401, 1867; Slate v. Sopher, 25 Utah, 318 1902; Commonwealth v. Has, 122 Mass., 
 40, 1877; State v. Ludwig, 21 Minn., 202, 1875; The People v. Ruggles & Johnston, 
 290 (N. Y.), 1811; Lindenmuler v. The People, 33 Barb., 584, 1861; State v. Wil- 
 liams, 4 Iredell (N. C), 400, 1844; City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin, 2 Strob- 
 hart, 508 (S. C), 1846; Gabel v. Houston, 29 Texas, 335, 1867; N. & W. R. R. Co. v. 
 Commonwealth, 93 Va., 749, 1896; State v. Powell, 58 0. R. (Ohio), 324, 1898; Breyer 
 V. The State, 18 Piek, 103 (Tenn.), 1899; Richmond v. Moore, 107 111., 429, 1883; The 
 State V. O'Rourke, 35 Neb., 614, 1892. 
 
2TO THE SABBATH AS A CIVIL INSTITUTION. 
 
 of any manner of labor, business or work, except only works of 
 necessity and charity." 
 
 The facts here considered settle the question whether or not 
 Christianity is part of the common law. While there have been 
 a few negative opinions rendered by our courts on this question, 
 nearly all the opinions are in the afifirmative. As explanatory of 
 this statement and of the kindred statement that the Sabbath is a 
 civil institution the following from an opinion by the United 
 States Circuit Court of the Western District of Tennessee is un- 
 excelled. 
 
 "The religion of Jesus Christ is so interwoven with the tex- 
 ture of our civilization, and every one of its institutions, that it 
 is impossible for any man, or set of men, to live among us and 
 find exemption from its influences and restraints. Sunday ob- 
 servance is so essentially a part of that religion that it is im- 
 possible to rid our laws of it, quite as impossible as to abolish the 
 custom we have of using the English language, or clothing our- 
 selves with the garments appropriate to our sex There is 
 
 scarcely any man who has not had to yield something to the law 
 of the majority which is itself a universal law, from which we 
 
 cannot escape in the name of equal rights or civil liberty 
 
 The fact that religious belief is one of the foundations of the 
 custom is no objection to it, as long as the individual is not com- 
 pelled to observe the religious ceremonies others choose to ob- 
 serve in connection with their rest days Not one of our laws 
 
 or institutions or customs is free from the influence of our relig- 
 ion, and that religion has put our race and people in the very 
 front of all nations in everything that makes the human race 
 comfortable and useful in the world. This very principle of re- 
 ligious freedom is the product of our religion, as all our good 
 customs are." (In Re King, 46 Federal Reports, 905, 1891.) 
 
 This argument would not be complete without an extract 
 from the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
 the famous case of the Church of the Holy Trinity v. United 
 States . This Court said : 
 
 "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to 
 any legislation. State or National, because this is a religious peo- 
 ple. This is historically true. From the discovery of this con- 
 
SABBATH LA WS REST UPON DIVINE A UTHORITY. 215 
 
 tinent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this af- 
 firmation." 
 
 Quotations are then given at length from the commission 
 given to Christopher Columbus, from the Charters of the Colo- 
 nies, from the Declaration of Independence and from other docu- 
 ments. These are followed by extracts from the opinions al- 
 ready given declaring that Christianity is part of the common 
 law of the land. The Supreme Court of the United States lends 
 its sanction to this proposition, and declares that "This is a 
 Christian Nation." 
 
 The Sabbath occurring on tlie first day of the week is a 
 part of that Christianity which is part of the Common law. This 
 is not theory but fact. It is not made a fact by any process of 
 legislation, but legislation favoring the Sabbath grows out of the 
 fact. It has developed with the growth and development of the 
 nation itself. It is an element in the vital constitution of the na- 
 tion. Christianity without a Sabbath is not Christianity. A 
 Christian nation without the civil institution of the Sabbath is 
 not a Christian nation. The only way to remove the Sabbath 
 from civil life and law is to to eliminate Christianity from the 
 lives of the people. 
 
 FIFTH GROUND LAWS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE SABBATH 
 
 AS A CIVIE INSTITUTION REST UPON DIVINE AUTHORITY. 
 
 As this feature of the question is too often ignored it is im- 
 portant that it be here presented with considerable fullness. 
 
 While there is no direct and explicit acknowledgment of di- 
 vine authority in our Sabbath laws themselves, the fact that 
 thirty-one of them use the terms Sabbath and Lord's day is to 
 be regarded as containing an implied recognition of sucli au- 
 throity, while the non-use of these terms is not a denial of it. 
 
 In the opinions of our courts, however, the divine authority 
 on which the law rests is frequently recognized. Extracts from 
 these opinions will be given in chronological order. 
 
 In 181 1, in The People against Ruggles, the Supreme Court 
 of New York declared that "Christianity, in its enlarged sense^ 
 as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is not unknown 
 to our law. The statute for preventing immorality consecrates 
 
212 SABBATH LA WS REST UPON DIVINE A UTHORIIY. 
 
 the first day of the week, as holy time, and considers the viola- 
 tion of it immoral." (8 Johnston 290.) 
 
 " Ringgold in his work on "Sunday Laws,'" flippantly speaks 
 of the legislature of New York as claiming the power to make 
 a day holy, and quotes this opinion in proof of his statement. 
 But this is not a correct interpretation of the language used. If 
 it were it would be no recognition of divine authority, but rather 
 an assumption of a divine prerogative. A reference to the New 
 York Statutes will show that the Legislature speaks of the Sab- 
 bath as holy time in the minds of Christians without any legisla- 
 tive act. (Section 264.) What the Legislature did was to rec- 
 ognize its holy character and to protect it as such, which involves 
 a recognition of Him who alone can make a day holy. 
 
 In 1846, in City Council of Charleston v. Benjamin, the Su- 
 preme Court of South Carolina used the following words : "The 
 Lord's day, the day of the Resurrection, is to us who are called 
 Christians, the day of rest after fininshing a new creation. It 
 is the day of the first visible triumph over death, hell and the 
 grave. It was the birthday of the believer in Christ, to whom 
 and through whom it opened up the way which, by repentance 
 and faith, leads unto everlasting life and eternal happiness. On 
 that day we rest, and to us it is the Sabbath of the Lord — its de- 
 cent observance in a Christian community is that which is to be 
 expected." (2 Strobhart, 508.) 
 
 With wonderful lucidity and power the court proceeded to 
 •maintain the proposition that Christianity is part of the common 
 law, that its moral principles permeate our social life and influ- 
 ence our legislation, and that its moral laws may be appealed to 
 as authorative in civil afifairs. 
 
 The Supreme Court of North Carolina used the following 
 language in 1844, in The .Stale v. Williams. Work on the Sab- 
 bath "ofifends us not so much because it disturbs us in practicing 
 for ourselves the religious duties, or enjoying the salutary re- 
 pose, or recreation of the day, as that it is in itself, a breach of 
 God's law and a violation of the party's own religious duty." 
 (4 Iredell 400.) 
 
 The Supreme Court of Iowa, in 1S48, in Davis v. Fish, said 
 concerning the Sabbath that "It has been established by laws 
 both human and divine, for public worship and private devotion 
 
SABBATH LA WS REST I'PON DIVINE A UTHORITY. 21 j 
 
 — a time-honored and heaven-appointed institution." (i Green 
 406.) 
 
 In Neal and others v. Crew, the Supreme Court of Geor- 
 gia, in 1852, expressed disapprobation of municipal arrange- 
 ments "which overlook and disregard the moral law of the Great 
 Jehovah, who from the smoking top of Mount Sinai proclaimed 
 to all the world, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy; 
 in it thou shalt not do any work.' " (12 Ga. 93.) 
 
 In his "Constitutional Limitations," Judge Cooley says that 
 "the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have preferred to defend 
 Sabbath laws" on the ground simply that they are "sanitary reg- 
 ulations, based upon the demonstration of experience that one 
 day's rest in seven is needful to recuperate the exhausted ener- 
 gies of body and mind." (pp. 589, 590.) He seems to have 
 overlooked the opinion in Johnston v. Commonwealth, in which 
 the following occurs : "It m.ay not be essential, but it is far from: 
 irrelevant, to the decision of the present case, to sustain the di- 
 vine authority of its institution." The court declares the day to- 
 be "set apart by divine command and human legislation as a day 
 of rest. We have no right to give up this institution. It has- 
 come down to us with the most solemn sanctions, both of God: 
 and man." (22 Pa. 192, 1853.) 
 
 In the same year, in Omit v. Commonwealth, the same 
 Court said, "Rest one day in seven was enjoined by the precept 
 and example of the Author of our existence, and government, 
 founding itself on divine appointment, has made it a civil in- 
 stitution." (21 Pa. 426.) 
 
 In Stockton v. The State the Supreme Court of Arkansas 
 declared that the object of the Sabbath law is "to prohibit the 
 desecration of the Sabbath wliich i.s set apart by divine ap- 
 pointment as well as bv the law of the land." fi8 Ark, 186, 
 1856.) 
 
 In 1859, in Campbell v. The International Life Assurance 
 Society of London, the Supreme Court of New York called at- 
 tention to the fact that the statute "explicitly recognizes the first 
 day of the week as holy time." The court then gave an argu- 
 ment to prove that the Jewish Sabbath has been abolished and 
 has been superseded by the Lord's day. The essential points 
 in the argument are these : The Scripture passages foimd in 
 
214 SABBATH LAWS REST UPON DIVINE A UTHOBITY. 
 
 Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; and John 21, together 
 with the expression "the Lord's day," in Revelation 1:10; the 
 practice of the Christians of assembling on the first day of the 
 week, as mentioned in I Corinthians 16 :2, and the usages of 
 Christians. traced back to remote antiquity "constitute an argu- 
 ment of irresistible force to prove that the Jewish Sabbath was 
 superseded, that the day of the resurrection was substituted, and 
 that the great injunction of the ancient law to keep it holy, was 
 applicable to this new day of a greater deliverance." (4 Bos- 
 worth 998.) 
 
 In i860 the New York Superior Court in a case already 
 quoted said, "The learned counsel of the plaintiffs has entered 
 largely into the question of the origin and sanction of the Chris- 
 tian Sabbath. It may not be essential but it is far from being 
 irrelevant, to the decision of the present case, to sustain the 
 divine authority of the institution." (20 Howard's Practice 
 Reports, 76.) 
 
 In Karwisch v. The Mayor and Council of Atlanta, the Su- 
 preme Court of Georgia, in 1871, said, "The law fixes the day 
 recognized as the Sabbath day all over Christendom, and that 
 day, by divine injunction, is to be kept holy." (44 Ga. 204.) 
 
 In Waldon et al v. Colquitt, Governor, the same court, in 
 1879, called attention to the fact that the Code denominates the 
 first day of the week "the Lord's day, and as the Lord's day all 
 ■courts and magistrates are to consider it." (62 Ga. 449.) 
 
 The Missouri Court of Appeals in the case of the City of 
 St. Joseph V. Elliott, declared that they would not decide whether 
 the law is constitutional as prescribing a religious duty to God, 
 a political duty to the State, or a social duty to our fellow-men, 
 or all three combined. The Court declared that Sabbath laws 
 have been upheld on each of these grounds, that the protection 
 of the observance of religious duties was one part of their object, 
 and that the moving cause of their enactment was obedience to 
 a religious sentiment. It was maintained further by this Court 
 that the defense of these laws for other reasons than those based 
 on Christianity is an afterthought of the courts and were not the 
 moving cause of their enactment. (47 A. 418, 1891.) 
 
 These citations may be brought to a close most fittingly by 
 giving President Lincoln's General Order issued in November, 
 
THE CONSTITUTIONAL SABBATH. 215 
 
 1862, for the better observance of the Sabbath in the Army and 
 Navy. It is as follows: "The President, Commander-in-Chief 
 of the Army and Navy, desires and enjoins the orderly observ- 
 ance of the Sabbath by the officers and men in the military and 
 naval service. The importance for man and beast of the pre- 
 scribed weekly rest, the sacred rights of Christian soldiers and 
 sailors, a becoming deference to the best sentiment of a Chris- 
 tian people, and a due regard for the Divine will demand that 
 Sunday labor in the Army and Navy be reduced to the measure 
 of strict necessity." 
 
 In 1899, President McKinley, in General Order No. 50, in- 
 corporated this order of President Lincoln's. Its recognition of 
 the Divine will in the matter of Sabbath observance is deserving 
 of imitation by all who have to do with laws touching the mat- 
 ter in question. 
 
 THE CONSTITUTIONAL SARBATII. 
 
 Many of the opponents of the Sabbath seem to have aban- 
 doned at least temporarily the effort to secure opinions of Courts 
 against the constitutionality of Sabbath laws. Some of them 
 even declare their love for the Sabbath and their desire that it 
 be perpetuated and protected. They are quite assiduous, how- 
 ever, in efforts to secure new legislation enlarging the list of ex- 
 ceptions to the application of the law. It becomes an important 
 matter therefore to consider what kind of a Sabbath law is con- 
 stitutional. 
 
 Evidently this question cannot be determined wholly by an 
 examination of written constitutions, State and National. The 
 provisions of these documents forbid the invasion of human 
 rights, but they contain no positive injunctions as to the enact- 
 ment of Sabbath laws. In the absence of such injunctions we 
 must look elsewhere for the needed information. It is to be 
 found by a careful study of the real character of the Sabbath as 
 a civil institution. The Sabbath in the civil and political life of 
 this country has a certain well defined character. A constitu- 
 tional Sabbath law is one that adequately protects this institu- 
 tion. 
 
 Our Sabbath differs from the Sundav of Continental Eu- 
 
2i6 A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT. 
 
 rope, Mexico and the South American nations. Our Sabbath 
 lasts twenty-four hours. To devote the afternoon and evening 
 of the day to business, or pleasure, is in conflict with the spirit 
 of the institution. The customs that have been growing up of 
 late years in many of our cities and their suburbs, whereby the 
 greater part of the day becomes a holiday are wholly un-Ameri- 
 can and are fraught with danger to our civilization and our 
 country. 
 
 Some of the modifications introduced in some States in re- 
 cent years whereby the selling of tobacco and various kinds of 
 luxuries, the printing and selling of newspapers, and the doing 
 of other things which come under the head neither of charity nor 
 necessity, are violative of the institution as it exists among us, 
 and ought to be considered unconstitutional. A constitutional 
 Sabbath law in any of our States is one which, in general, pro- 
 tects all the people in their right to rest and to engage in public 
 and private worship if they so desire. 
 
 It is a law which forbids, in general, all business and labor 
 (works of necessity and charity alone excepted), all amusements 
 and public sports, all hunting and fishing. 
 
 There is considerable diversity among our Sabbath laws as 
 to the legality of contracts made on the Sabbath. In general, 
 marriage contracts and contracts relating to the support of relig- 
 ion, are binding, though made on the Sabbath. In a few States 
 a private business contract is binding. Generally such contracts 
 are illegal and not enforceable. 
 
 A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT. 
 
 When our courts declare Sabbath laws to be constitutional 
 it is not to be understood that there are positive constitutional 
 provisions on which these laws rest and that the institution has 
 adequate constitutional protection. All that is meant is that 
 these laws violate no provisions of the written constitution and 
 that they are in harmony witli the unwritten constitution. The 
 last Sabbath law enacted by California was declared by the Su- 
 preme Court of the State to be constitutional. When the legis- 
 lature repealed the law no provision of the written constitution 
 was violated. 
 
A CONSTITUTIONAL DEFECT. 217 
 
 Is there not a necessity therefore for positive provisions in 
 written constitutions making it mandatory upon legislative bod- 
 ies to enact Sabbath laws which shall afford adequate protection 
 to the institution? Should not such constitutional provisions 
 contain explicit recognition of the divine authority on which the 
 Sabbath rests?. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE ULTIMATE GROUND OF SABBATH LAWS. 
 
 With one exception the grounds on which Sabbath laws 
 rest have been amply presented and sustained by the courts. 
 That exception is the Divine authority for such laws. 
 
 With one exception all conceivable objections to these laws 
 have been fully answered in the judicial opinions quoted. That 
 •exception is the objection which assumes that the separation of 
 Church and State involves the separation of religion and the 
 State, and the consequent banishment from the sphere of the 
 State's action of all questions requiring settlement by an author- 
 itative moral standard. 
 
 OPINIONS BASED ON SECULARISM. 
 
 In some instances the courts, not willing to maintain the 
 Divine authority for Sabbath laws, and yet persuaded that these 
 laws must be sustained as constitutional, have announced in un- 
 mistakable terms the secular theory of civil government, and 
 have sought constitutional support for such laws in the mere will 
 of the people. 
 
 The will of the people may be sufficient ground for a law es- 
 tablishing a holiday. It may suffice even for some of the laws 
 regarding the first day of the week as found in some of our State 
 Codes. But it is not sufficient ground for a law setting apart a 
 day as a day of rest. 
 
 218 
 
OPINIONS BASED ON SECULARISM. 219 
 
 It can easily be shown that if there is no Divine authority 
 for Sabbath laws each of the other grounds is worthless, as ap- 
 pears from the following considerations: The Declaration of 
 Independence truthfully states that "all men are endowed by 
 their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these 
 are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ; that, to secure these 
 rights, governments are instituted among men." The right to 
 engage in labor, business and innocent amusement is bestowed 
 by the Creator and is to be protected by the government. If gov- 
 ernment prohibits these pursuits one day in seven, unless it has 
 a divine warrant so to do, it is guilty of an unjustifiable invasion 
 of human rights. Thus the first ground on which Sabbath laws 
 are sustained is shown to need the Divine will to sustain it. 
 
 Moreover, the right claimed by Christians to a Sabbath free 
 from the turmoil incident to the activities of secular pursuits is 
 no right at all unless given by the Creator. Any person or 
 class of persons, it may be conceded, has the right to cease from 
 such pursuits as often and as long as they desire. But where 
 does any one get the right to demand that others shall be legally 
 restrained from the usual activities of life on any day unless he 
 can show a divine warrant? Thus the second ground on which 
 the courts rest the argument for Sabbath laws must be given up 
 unless God's will upholds it. 
 
 The third ground stands in similar need of Divine support. 
 It upholds these laws as police regulations for the promotion of 
 the public welfare. Public health, public peace and public 
 morals are said to be promoted thereby. But why should it be 
 more unhealthy to labor on the first day of the. week than on 
 any other? Why would not this interest be conserved just as 
 well by decreasing the number of hours that should constitute 
 a day's work? Why should people have the idea that the 
 public peace is disturbed on the first day by the things 
 that are done on all other days without thought of 
 any such disturbance? Why is it, unless the day is recognized 
 as holy? Why should it be regarded as immoral to do the very 
 things on the first day of the week which all agree ought to be 
 done on other days? No reason can be given except the sacr.ed- 
 ness that belongs to the day by Divine appointment. 
 
 By the terms of the fourth ground on which Sabbath laws 
 
220 CONFLICTING OPINIONS. 
 
 are sustained the Sabbath is declared to be a civil institution^ 
 and as such entitled to legal protection. The objector may ad- 
 mit that the Sabbath is a civil institution, as things now are, but 
 he denies that it ought to be. It is asserted that it has no more 
 right to be a civil institution than Ash Wednesday or Good Fri- 
 day. It is maintained that the great body of Christians in this- 
 land have misunderstood their own religion, that they are per- 
 petuating a Jewish custom which was abolished by Christ, and' 
 that when we accept and practice Christianity as Christ taught it,, 
 the Sabbath will cease to be a civil institution. Like all the rest, 
 this fourth ground for Sabbath laws must be abandoned sooner 
 or later unless the Sabbath is a divine institution sustained by 
 a divine law which is of perpetual obligation. In contending 
 against the vandal hosts that are seeking the destruction of the 
 Sabbath, we will be driven back from one position to another and 
 finally driven from the field and vanquished, imless we have the 
 support of divine authority. Unless God is with us we might as 
 well give up the fight at once. The real issue then is, have we 
 divine authority for keeping the first day of the week as the Sab- 
 bath and for protecting its observance by law? 
 
 CONFLICTING OPINIONS. 
 
 This is the principal point on which judicial opinions relat- 
 ing to the Sabbath laws are at variance. In many cases the 
 courts assume that the first day of the week is the Sabbath and 
 that the Divine authority for a weekly rest day is expressed in 
 the Fourth Commandment. In a few instances this position is 
 boldly declared and sustained by proof. In some of the opinions 
 just considered the question of Divine authority for the rest day 
 is evaded, but the necessity of Divine authority for the rest day 
 statute is denied. 
 
 In at least one instance, however, an elaborate argument is 
 presented against the permanency of the Fourth Commandment 
 and against any Divine warrant for a .Sabbath law in this gospel 
 dispensation. This was done by Mr. Justice Read in Sparhawk 
 V. Union Passenger Railway Company. Mr. Read said: 
 
 "I am aware that some religious persons of some religious 
 sects think the sanctity of Sunday, as a day of entire rest, is 
 prescribed to all nations, and particularly to all Christians, by 
 
CONFLICTING OPINIONS. 221 
 
 the Fourth Commandment in the Decalogue, but an attentive 
 perusal of the 20th, 31st and 35th chapters of Exodus, and of the 
 5th chapter of Deuteronomy, will show that this commandment 
 was specially limited to the Jewish nation alone." "This reca- 
 pitulation of Scripture makes it clear that the Fourth Command- 
 ment, which is a positive statute imposed upon the Israelites 
 alone, as a people separated from all other nations by the Al- 
 mighty for special and wise purposes, was not intended either for 
 the Gentiles, or for those living under a later dispensation. Like 
 ■circumcision, it was a sign between Him and them only. It was 
 a part of the ceremonial law, like sacrifices, and not binding at 
 any time on any nation except the Jews. . . . 
 
 "The Old Testament contains moral revealed law, cere- 
 monial and judicial laws — the two last being either typical, or 
 intended specially or only for the Jewish people, under the old 
 dispensation, were terminated by fulfillment or abrogation on the 
 coming of Christ, and the completion of the Christian dispensa- 
 tion. This was the view of the Apostle Paul, when he says in his 
 epistle to the Collossians, 'Blotting out the handwriting of or- 
 dinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took 
 it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled 
 principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, tri- 
 umphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in 
 meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new 
 moon, or of the Sabbath days.' So in his Epistle to the Galla- 
 tians, 4:9, 10 and 5 :i : 'But now after that ye have known God,' 
 or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and 
 "beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 
 Ye observe days and months and times and years.' So in his 
 epistle to the Romans 14:5 ; 'One man esteemeth one day above 
 another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be 
 fully persuaded in his own mind. He lliat regardeth the day re- 
 gardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, 
 to the Lord he doth not regard it.' And in the preceding chap- 
 ter, 9th verse, the Apostle says, 'For this, thou shalt not commit 
 adultery, Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not 
 bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet ; and if there be any other 
 commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying. Thou 
 shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' 
 
 "It is evident from these texts that the Apostle did not re- 
 gard the Fourth Commandment as a part of the moral revealed 
 law, but as a ceremonial or judicial law which was terminated by 
 the coming of our Saviour and the completion of the Christian 
 dispensation. ... "I am deeply impressed with the necessity 
 of a proper observance of Sunday as a day of worship and prayer, 
 and of rest from labor; but living under the new dispensation. 
 
2 22 THE SABBATH BEFORE MOSES. 
 
 and not under the old dispensation, I feel no inclination to turn 
 the Lord's day into a Jewish Sabbath." (54 Pa. 401, 1867.) 
 
 It might be regarded as a sufficient reply to this argument 
 to quote again the opinions of those courts which have main- 
 tained the divine authority for the Sabbath, especially that opin- 
 ion of the Supreme Court of New York in which the Scriptural 
 argument is given. But there is no case in which the ground 
 canvassed by Judge Read is covered by a contrary opinion. His 
 fallacious reasoning will have more weight with many people 
 than all the contrary opinions of civil courts. Moreover, his op- 
 inion but rehearses the opinions of many who deny the perpetuity 
 of the Sabbath, and who consequently oppose all Sabbath laws.. 
 
 THK SABBATH BHKORT^ MOSES. 
 
 Mr. Justice Read assumes that the Sabbath was first insti- 
 tuted when the law was promulgated at Mt. Sinai. This is an 
 erroneous assumption. It was instituted at the time of the cre- 
 ation. "God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it; because 
 that in it he rested from all his work which God had created and 
 made." (Gen. 2 :3.) 
 
 The Israelites were reminded of the Sabbath and their duty 
 to keep it before they reached Sinai. No manna was given on 
 that day because it was to be a solemn rest unto Jehovah. (Ex. 
 16:23-30.) 
 
 The custom of dividing time into periods of seven days 
 known to have existed in many nations cannot be explained sat- 
 isfactorily if we close our eyes to the fact that this custom ex- 
 isted from the beginning by Divine appointment. 
 
 MOSES AND THE EOURTH COMMANDMENT. 
 
 The position of Mr. Justice Read is that the Fourth Com- 
 mandment was given to the Jews alone, that it belonged to the 
 Ceremonial or Judicial Code, and that it was not intended for 
 any people except the Jews. 
 
 But this commandment was given precisely as those against 
 murder, stealing, lying and other sins were given. Were these 
 other commandments binding only on the Jews? 
 
 This commandment along with the other nine was an- 
 
THE SABBA TH A SIGN. 223 
 
 nounccd with an audible voice by God from the smoking summit 
 of Mt. Sinai. If it was only a ceremonial law belonging in the 
 same class with the laws relating to sacrifices, purifications and 
 other ceremonies, how comes it that God thus associated it with 
 the moral code? 
 
 This conmmandment along with the other nine was written 
 with God's own finger on a table of stone. No merely ceremon- 
 ial law was so written. If Judge Read and others who agree 
 with him are correct, they are wiser than God and can improve 
 on His arrangement of His own law. 
 
 It is true that the Sabbath sustained relations to the cere- 
 monial law. Twice as many sacrifices were to be offered on 
 that day as on other df^ys. It was the day on which the new 
 supply of show-bread was placed upon the table in the Holy 
 place. But the law itself was moral, not ceremonial. 
 
 It is true the Sabbath law was incorporated in the Hebrew 
 judicial or civil code. But so were the laws against profanity, 
 murder, stealing and other immoralities. Are they all therefore 
 abrogated? Are we free from all the moral requirements of the 
 Hebrew civil code because we are not Jews? 
 
 THE SABBATH A SIGN. 
 
 Reliance is placed on the Bible texts which declare the Sab- 
 bath to be a sign between God and Israel. It is inferred that 
 no other people should have this sign ; that its meaning as a sign 
 is obscured if they do. 
 
 But did God choose and separate Israel and make them dif- 
 ferent from other nations on the principle that no others ought 
 to be what He aimed to make them? Was it not the divine pur- 
 pose to make them different from what others were, though they 
 all should have been just what he aimed to make them? Was 
 not, and is not. Sabbath keeping a sign whereby a people always 
 indicate their attitude toward God and His law? Is there a high 
 state of morals in any nation where the Sabbath is not kept? 
 
 PAUL AND THE SABBATH. 
 
 The texts quoted by Mr. Justice Read from the Epistles of 
 Paul are often used for the same purpose by others. They cer- 
 
224 THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT AND THE SABBATH. 
 
 tainly teach that a change has been introduced, that something 
 has been abrogated. But is' it the Fourth Commandment? This 
 commandment is not mentioned nor referred to. Careful and 
 discriminating Bible students will note this. It is well known 
 that Paul had many a sharp controversy with Judaizers. They 
 -aimed to observe the entire ceremonial law, and taught its ne- 
 cessity in order to salvation. Paul denied their contention. He 
 pronounced it unnecessary servitude. He issued a declaration 
 of independence from such bondage. He declared it optional 
 with Christians whether they observe Jewish customs. Among 
 these customs were circumcision, the observance of the new 
 moons, the keeping of the Jewish Sabbath. Already Christians 
 were observing the first day of the week, not yet called the Sab- 
 bath but the Lord's day. To have called it the Sabbath then 
 would have made confusion. Many Jewish converts kept both 
 the first and the seventh days of the week, and taught the neces- 
 sity of so doing. Paul declares in terms that no Jew could mis- 
 understand that it was not necessary to keep the Jewish Sabbath. 
 But this does not deny the authority of the Fourth Command- 
 ment. Christians were obeying it by observing the first day of 
 the week. 
 
 THE FOURTH COMM.A.NDMENT AND THE SABBATH. 
 
 The great mistake made by some people is in holding that 
 the Fourth Commandment fixes the Sabbath unalterably upon 
 the seventh day of the week. According to this theory the aboli- 
 tion of the seventh day Sabbath is the abolition of the Fourth 
 •Commandment. Those who hold this theory and believe the 
 Fourth Commandment to be still binding have great difBculty 
 with Paul's words, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, 
 or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a Sab- 
 bath day." (Col. 2 :i6.) Mr. Justice Read and some others take 
 these words to mean a complete abolition of the Sabbath because 
 they hold that no day of the week except the seventh can possibly 
 be a Sabbath. The truth is, the Fourth Commandment does not 
 fix the Sabbath upon any day. It only declares that one day in 
 seven shall be kept holy. That day is to be the seventh after 
 six of labor, which it will be, no matter on which day of the seven 
 it may chance to occur. The particular day is determined else- 
 
IHE MORAL LA W NOT REPEALED 225 
 
 where. The principle is eternaUy estabHshed 1)}- the Fourth 
 precept of the Decalop^ue. No change would be needed in the 
 language of this precept whether the Sabbath should fall on the 
 third, the fourth, or any other day of the week. 
 
 THK MORAL, L, \\V NOT RF.PK XT.^D. 
 
 The theory is held by many that the entire law has been re- 
 pealed by the coming and work of Christ and that as a conse- 
 quence the Fourth Commandment is no longer in force. On 
 this theory it follows that nothing but human authority pre- 
 scribes the keeping of the first day of the week. Certain state- 
 ments by Paul are quoted to sustain the theory, such as these : 
 ■"We are not under law but under grace;" K.omans 6:14; "Christ 
 IS the end of the law for righteousness to every one that be- 
 lieveth," Romans 10:4. But it is sometimes forgotten that in 
 answer to the question, "Do we make void the law through 
 faith?" Paul said, "Nay, but we establish the law." Romans 3: 
 21. 
 
 It should be remembered that Paul was antagonizing the 
 theory of certain Jews "who being ignorant of God's righteous- 
 ness, and seeking to establish their own," "did not subject them- 
 •selves to the righteousness of God." Romans 10:3. Paul's ob- 
 ject is to show that saving righteousness is obtained, not by the 
 deeds of the law, but by faith in Christ. He seeks to put the law 
 in its proper place and to point out its proper use so as to guard 
 against its being put in the place of the free grace of God. Its 
 use is to convict of sin, to be our schoolmaster to bring to Christ. 
 The use of the plough is not abrogated by a declaration that it 
 cannot take the place of a reaping or a theshing machine, but a 
 step is taken in defining its proper use. 
 
 THE REPEAL AND REENACTMENT THEORY. 
 
 Passing now from the opinion of Mr. Justice Read it may 
 "be well to notice the dangerous theory held by some to the ef- 
 fect that the entire law was repealed by Christ and so much of it 
 reenacted as is now necessary to guide the lives of Christians. 
 Some who hold this view maintain that the Fourth Command- 
 ment has been reenacted by the institution of the Lord's day, 
 
226 CHRIST AND THE SABBATH. 
 
 while others deny any such reenactment. On this matter the 
 following quotation is pertinent : 
 
 "There has been a good deal of well meant but loosely ex- 
 pressed statement about reenactment of more or les^ of the Dec- 
 alogue in the New Testament. For instance, a prominent pas- 
 tor, studious and devout (Sunday School Times, of Philadelphia, 
 January 14, 1882,), says of the Fourth: 'It happens to be the 
 only one of the ten which is not repeated nor reenacted in set 
 terms in the new Testam.ent.' Now repetition is one thing, re- 
 enactment is another. There are plain enough reasons why the 
 Fourth was not repeated. But when were any of them reen- 
 acted? Reenactment means an explicit, formal restatement of 
 the binding authority of the law as such. Our Lord never made 
 such a statement. He and His hearers alike took it for granted 
 that every one of the ten was a living law. He expounded and 
 applied them. He never professed to add to their authority. 
 He never rehearsed them as a whole. He never catalogued 
 them. He never repeated nine, omitting one. There is not one 
 line in the New Testament which implies that the Decalogue is 
 not a unit, whole, inseparable." (Eight studies on the Lord's 
 day. Note, pp. 260, 261.) 
 
 One form of this theory looks for proof to H. Cor. 3:7-11 : 
 "If the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, 
 was glorious : . . . how shall not the ministration of the Spirit 
 be rather glorious? . .• . for if that which is done away was glori- 
 ous, much more that which reniaineth is glorious."* It is as- 
 sumed that it is the moral law that is done away. But how does 
 this harmonize with the theory of reenactment? Paul is con- 
 trasting, not the Gospel with the law as such, but the new dis- 
 pensation with the old. The old dispensation has passed awav, 
 but it had permanent elements which passed over into the new. 
 The moral law is one of those permanent elements. 
 
 CHRIST AND THE SABBATH. 
 
 There may be different views as to the seeming silence of 
 our Lord and the writers of the New Testamnet concerningf the 
 
 * "Ought Christians to Iceep the Sabbath." By R. A. Torrey, p. 2u. 
 
CHRIST AND THE SABBATH. 227 
 
 permanency of the Fourth Commandment. It ma> be suffici- 
 ent to call attention to certain well known facts. The Jews were 
 very profane and our Lord repeats the command against pro- 
 fanity. They evaded the command that requires children to 
 honor their parents, and He reproves them for their sin. They 
 misinterpreted the Sixth Commandment so as to narrow its 
 scope, and He shows them that even anger is a violation of this 
 precept. They were given to violations of the Seventh Com- 
 mandment, and He shows them the spiritual nature of it. They 
 were guilty of robbery in various ways and He reproves them. 
 They were great liars, and He denounces them for their sin. 
 They were covetous, and He opens up their hearts to their sight 
 that they may see how corrupt they are. But as to the Fourth 
 Conmiandment they erred on the side of punctiliousness. In the 
 case of the other precepts of the Decalogue they gave loose in- 
 terpretations and sought devices for evading their requirements. 
 But in the case of the Fourth they even added many require- 
 ments of their own and pronoimced judgment on Christ for not 
 complying with them. We protest against the custom of re- 
 garding Christ as an advocate of looseness in Sabbath keeping 
 because He reproved the Jews for their strictness and found it 
 unnecessary in specific terms to reiterate this precept. 
 
 But the supposed silence of the New Testament concerning 
 this precept is more seeming than real. The continuance of a 
 law may be recognized and enjoined by the enjoining of duties 
 which cannot be performed otherwise. Does Christianity en- 
 join any duties which cannot be performed as intended by the 
 Divine Head of the Church if the Sabbath is abolished? Some- 
 thing is implied in the very word, "Church.'' It involves the 
 idea of a public congregation, an assembly for worship. Such 
 an assembly can be held with regularity, and all its members can 
 be free to attend, only by having a day set apart, free from 
 worldly business and labor and pleasure seeking. That such as- 
 semblies will be held is supposed as a matter of course by every 
 line of the New Testament. It is plainly taught by the example 
 of the Apostles and their disciples in forming congregations and 
 establishing ordinances of public worship. It is made manda- 
 tory by the authoritative word of an inspired writer. "Not for- 
 saking the assembling of vourselves together as the manner of 
 
228 PERMANENCY OE THE SABBATH. 
 
 some is, Init exhorting one another ; and so much the more as 
 ye see the day approaching.'' (Heb. 10:25.) 
 
 It is pertinent to inquire in this connection whether it is 
 wrong to neglect the supposed Christian obhgations noted 
 above. Where there is no law there is no transgression. If there 
 is no law requiring the observance of the Sabbath there is no 
 sin in not observing it. If there is no sin in not observing it 
 tliere is no sin in neglecting public and private worship on that 
 dav. If there is no sin in neglecting theSe Christian ordinances 
 there is no sin in neglecting a profession of religion. In truth, 
 Sabbath keeping involves all Christian duty. The denial of its ob- 
 ligation is the denial of all Christian duty. 
 
 Sabbath observance is founded in the very nature of our re- 
 liation to our Creator. Our relation is one of absolute depend- 
 ence. The obligation growing out of that relation is service, in- 
 cluding worship and good works. The abolition of the Sabbath 
 is the denial, of that relationship and the refusal to render the 
 required service. 
 
 PERMANKNCV OF THE SABBATH. 
 
 Our Lord said, "Think not that I came to destroy the law 
 or the prophets : I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily 
 I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one 
 title shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be 
 aecom.phshed." (Matt. 5:17, 18.) 
 
 It is easily seen how the ceremonial laws relating to sacri- 
 fices and purifications have all been fulfilled in Christ. It is 
 easily seen, too, how the civil stattttes which were peculiar to Is- 
 rael have served their purpose and were fulfilled when Israel had 
 finished her mission in preparing the way for Christ. But no 
 one has yet shown that there has been any fulfillment of the Sab- 
 bath law. It points backward to God's rest when He had fin- 
 ished the work of creation. It also points forward to the rest 
 that remains for the people of God. It will not be fulfilled till 
 we enter into that rest. 
 
 THK NAME AND THE DAY. 
 
 Ih law the terms "Sabbath," "Lord's day" and "Sunday" are 
 
THE NAME AM) THE DA Y. 229 
 
 regarded as synonymous, being merely designations of the first 
 day of the week. These terms are all freely employed in our 
 statutes and judicial opinions. There are some people, however, 
 who refuse to apply the term "Sabbath*' to the first day of the 
 week. It is easy to understand this refusal on the part of those 
 who hold that the Seventh day of the week is the Sabbath and 
 has not been and never can be changed. It is easy to under- 
 stand it in the case of those who deny that we now have a Sab- 
 bath. It is impossible to understand it in the case of those who 
 believe that the Fourth Commandment is still binding and that 
 the first day of the week is now to be observed as a day of rest 
 instead of the seventh. It is no part of the object of this discus- 
 sion to present the evidence that tlie first day of the week is the 
 New Testament Sabbath. But the following outline is here sub- 
 mitted. 
 
 (i) The example of cur Lord in appearing to His disciples 
 after His resurrection on the first day of the week. Luke 24:36; 
 John 20:19-29. 
 
 (2) The gift of the Holy Spirit on the first day of the week. 
 Acts 2:1-4. 
 
 (3) The Christian custom of meeting for worship on the 
 first day of the week. Acts 20:7; i Cor. 15:2. 
 
 (4) The testimony of the Fathers that this was the cus- 
 tom. (Ignatius, A. D., 100; Barnabas, Justin Martyr, A. D., 
 138; Melito, A. D., 170; Irenaeus. A. D.. [78; Clement of Alex- 
 andria, A. D., 194; Origen, A. D., 200.) 
 
 (5) The nanie "Sabbath" was transferred to the first day of 
 the week. Eusebius declares that by keeping the Lord's day 
 holy we keep the festival of the Sabbath. 
 
 Since the term "Sabbath" means "'rest'' or "cessation," and 
 since there must be rest or cessation from secular pursuits to the 
 end that men may meet for worship, it is a most suitable name for 
 the rest da}-. 
 
 CONCLUSIONS. 
 
 1. The character of our Sabbath laws is better than many 
 people have thought. 
 
 2. Modern tendencies are not all awav from the Sabbath 
 
230 CONCLUSI'.NS 
 
 of the Bible ; some States haye recently improved their laws, and 
 some of the recent judicial opinions are among the best. 
 
 3. In more than half the States the laws need to be 
 strengthened by extending the prohibitory clauses, reducing the 
 number of exceptions or increasing the penalty ; in some cases 
 one, in others two. in others all three of these things should be 
 done. 
 
 4. There is need of a campaign of education because of the 
 prevalence of Sabbath desecration, not only by worldly people, 
 but also by church members. The time has come for judgment 
 to begin at the house of God. 
 
 5. Legislative bodies need constant watching lest they de- 
 stroy existing legal safeguards of the Sabbath. 
 
 6. The civil comts can generally be relied upon to main- 
 tain the law ; some of the best things said in defense of the Sab- 
 bath have been said by the courts. A certain class of attorneys 
 who are reluctant to take cases involving the question of Sabbath 
 breaking unless it be to defend the criminal, should study these 
 great cases and learn what is the real basis of national greatness. 
 
 7. The principle that the Sabbath law is still binding in- 
 volves the principle that it is binding upon nations and govern- 
 ments. Both State and national governments are under obliga- 
 tion to obey the law as well as to enact laws against the desecra- 
 tion of the Sabbath by the people. 
 
 8. By the making of contracts for the carrying of the mails 
 on the Lord's day and the employment of thousands of men to 
 handle the mails, the United States Government is the chief vio- 
 lator of the Sabbath law. 
 
 9. Both State and United States Courts have gone beyond 
 the provisions of any written constitution in maintaining Sab- 
 bath laws ; this is especially the case in opinions declaring that 
 the law rests upon divine authority. 
 
 10. The Constitutions of the several states and the Consti- 
 tution of the United States should be so amended as to set forth 
 the fact of divine authority, and not leave it for the courts alone 
 to proclaim it. The courts need a constitutional warrant for 
 so doing. 
 
 11. The Sabbath question makes it clear that a separation 
 
CONOLUSIONS 231 
 
 of Church and State does not mean a separation of reHgion and 
 
 the State. 
 
 12. Sabbath breaking is not only an offense against re- 
 Hgion, against the Church and against the Head of the Church, 
 but it is also a crime against the Nation and the Nation's Divine 
 Ruler, in that it is an assault upon an institution that has done 
 more than any other to advance our civilization, is inwrought 
 into the very fiber of the nation's being, is a necessary condition 
 of our free institutions, and cannot be abolished without produc- 
 ing moral, religious and political chaos. 
 
 13. Our free government v/o'dd be impossible without our 
 Christian civilization ; our civilization is produced and perpetu- 
 ated bv the Christian religion; the Christian religion cannot exist 
 without the Christian church ; the Christian church would 
 lanquish and die without assemblies for public worship ; assem- 
 blies for worship are impossible without a day of rest ; a day of 
 rest needs the protection of statute law ; the statute law should 
 rest upon a constitutional provision ; the constitutional provision 
 should rest upon and acknowledge the authority of God. 
 
232 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Onl)^ the most important 
 occur frequently in the text. 
 
 Agriculture, Department of. 185 
 
 Alabama, Sabbath law of. . . 89 
 Opinions of Courts of. . 90 
 
 Alaska, Sabbath law of 175 
 
 Amusements, Prohibition of, 
 on the Sabbath, 23, 32, 35, 
 43, 45, 59, 103, 107, 111, . 
 113, 127, 128, 148, 153, 156, 
 157. 160, 163, 165, 176 
 
 Arizona. No Sabbath law in. .166 
 
 Arkansas, Sabbath law of... 28 
 Opinions of Courts of.. 30 
 
 Army, Regulations relating 
 to the 177 
 
 Athletic sports on the Sab- 
 bath forbidden. 41, 57, 141, 
 155, 158 
 
 Barbering. Prohibition of, on 
 the Sabbath, 31, 49, 53, 
 60, 79, 80, 84, 92, 107, 108, 
 ....120, 144, 149, 154, 163, 165 
 
 Base ball, Prohibition of, on 
 the Sabbath, 10. 16, 29, 41, 
 50, 57, 59, 64, 65, 125, 155 
 
 Basis of Sabbath laws, 129, 
 133, 148, 153, 155, 156, 
 194, 196, 218 
 
 Benefits of Sabbath laws, 18, 
 47, 75, 79, 85, 86, 108, 109, 
 123, 128, 133, 148, 153. 155, 
 156. 187 
 
 Business on the Sabbath, 
 Prohibition of. (See laws 
 of the different States.) 
 
 California, History of the 
 Sabbath law of. 
 Enactment of the law.... 167 
 Declared unconstitutional. 167 
 Judge Field's dissenting 
 
 opinion 169 
 
 The law re-enacted 170 
 
 The law constitutional, 
 
 170, 171 
 
 references are given when topics 
 
 Enactment of a new law.. 171 
 Bakers' rest day clause 
 
 unconstitutional 172 
 
 Remainder of the law con- 
 stitutional 173 
 
 Repeal of the law 174 
 
 Rest day law enacted 174 
 
 Campmeetings, Admission 
 fees to on the Sabbath 
 
 unlawful 79 
 
 Cases quoted in this volume, 
 
 Alabama. 
 
 (iotton V. Huey & Co 91 
 
 Frolickstein v. Mayor of 
 
 Mobile 90 
 
 Hooper v. Edwards 91 
 
 Manning v. Klein 92 
 
 O'Donnell et al, v. Swe- 
 
 ney 91 
 
 Sloss Iron and Steel Co. 
 
 V. Harvey 92 
 
 Wadsworth v. Dunnan.. 92 
 
 Arkansas. 
 
 Cleary v. State 30 
 
 Marre v. State 31 
 
 Petty V. State 31 
 
 Scales V. State 31 
 
 Shover v. State 30" 
 
 Stewart v. Davis 31 
 
 State V. Frederick 31 
 
 Stockton V. State 30 
 
 Tucker v. West et al . . . 31 
 
 California. 
 
 Ex parte Andrews 170 
 
 Ex parte Bird 171 
 
 Ex parte Burke 173 
 
 Ex parte Newman 169 
 
 Ex parte Westfield ....172 
 
 Colorado. 
 
 Cordillo V. People 147 
 
 Heinssen v. State 147 
 
 Huffsmith v. People 147 
 
 MuUer v. People 147 
 
INDEX 
 
 233. 
 
 Schwed V Hartwitz 147 
 
 Connecticut. 
 
 Avery v. Stewart 34 
 
 Finney v. Donahue 34 
 
 Grant v. McGrath 34 
 
 State V. Miller 34 
 
 Tyler v. Waddington. . . 34 
 Delaware. 
 
 Hull V. State 35 
 
 Spahn V. Williams 35 
 
 Terry v. Piatt 35 
 
 Georgia. 
 
 Bass V. Irwin 7 
 
 Gunn V. State 8 
 
 Hennington v. State.... 8 
 
 Hussey v. State 8 
 
 Karwisch v. Mayor and 
 Council of Atlanta... 7 
 
 Neal et al v. Crew 6 
 
 Salter et al. v. Smith... 7 
 Weldon et al v. Colquitt, 
 
 Governor 7 
 
 Illinois. 
 
 Collins Ice Cream Co. v. 
 
 Stephens 153 
 
 Eden V. People 149 
 
 Johnston v. People 150 
 
 Koop V. People 150 
 
 Langabier v. P. F. & N. 
 
 R. R. Co 151 
 
 McPherson v. Village of 
 
 Chebanse 148 
 
 Richmond v. Moore 151 
 
 Indiana. 
 
 Bennett v. N. A. & C. R. 
 
 R. Co 15 
 
 Carver v. State 13 
 
 Catlett V. Trustees of M. 
 
 E. Church 16 
 
 Davis V. Barker 15 
 
 Dugan V. State 16 
 
 Foltz V. State 12 
 
 Johns V. State 12 
 
 Mueller v. State 13 
 
 Perkins v. Jones 15 
 
 Reynolds v. Stevenson.. 14 
 State V. Hogreiver 16 
 
 Yonoski et al. v State.. 14 
 Iowa. 
 
 Davis V. Fish 37 
 
 First M. E. Church v. 
 
 Donnell 40 
 
 Gross V. Miller 39 
 
 Gunderson v. Richard- 
 son 37 
 
 Pike V. King 37 
 
 Sayer v. Wheeler 37 
 
 State V. Sherwood 38 
 
 Tingle V. C. B. & Q. R. 
 
 R. Co 38 
 
 Kansas. 
 
 City of Topeka v Hemp- 
 stead 41 
 
 Kansas City v. Orr 41 
 
 Kentucky. 
 
 Commonwealth v. L. & 
 
 N. R. R. Co 95 
 
 Dahoney etc. v.Dahoney 94 
 L. & N. R. R. Co. V. 
 
 Commonwealth 95 
 
 Moore v Hagan 94 
 
 Ormsby v. City of Lou- 
 isville 94 
 
 Ray etc. v. Catlett & 
 
 Buck 93 
 
 Slade V. Arnold 94 
 
 Louisiana. 
 
 City of Shreveport v. 
 
 Levy 97 
 
 State v. Fernandez 99 
 
 State V. Gelpi 99 
 
 State ex rel. Walker & 
 
 Merz V. Judge 97 
 
 Maine. 
 
 Meader v. White 43 
 
 Towle V. Larabee 42 
 
 Maryland. 
 
 Haack v. Knights of Lib- 
 erty 48 
 
 Judefind v. State 46 
 
 Kilgour V. Miles & Gold- 
 smith 45 
 
 P. W. & B. R. R. Co. V. 
 Lehman & Brother. .. 47 
 
234 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Thomasson v. State.... 11 
 
 Vogelsong v. State 11 
 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 Bucher v. Fitchburg R. 
 
 R. Co 105 
 
 Bucher v. Cheshire R. 
 
 R. Co 106 
 
 Clapp V. Hale 105 
 
 Commonwealth v. Has.. 102 
 Commonwealth v. Knox.103 
 
 Cranson v. Gross 105 
 
 Flagg V. Inhabitants of 
 
 Millburv 104 
 
 Geer v. Putnam 104 
 
 Pattee v. Putnam 105 
 
 Robson V. French 105 
 
 Stephens v. Wood 105 
 
 Stewart v. Thayer 105 
 
 Michigan. 
 
 Allen V. Duffie 51 
 
 Hall V. Parker 52 
 
 People V. Bellet 49 
 
 Scongale v. Sweet 50 
 
 Tucker v. Mowry 50 
 
 Turnverein Soc. v. Car- 
 ter 51 
 
 Minnesota, 
 
 Handy v. St. Paul Globe 
 
 Pub. Co 110 
 
 Opsahl V. Judd 110 
 
 State V. Ludwig 108 
 
 State V. Petit 108 
 
 Ward V. Ward 110 
 
 Mississippi. 
 
 Block V. McMurry 112 
 
 Kountz V. Price et al...ll2 
 
 Miller v. Linch 112 
 
 Telegraph Co. v. Mc- 
 
 Laurin 113 
 
 Missouri. - 
 
 City of St. Joseph v. El- 
 liott 56 
 
 Ex parte Joseoh Neet.. 57 
 
 Kaufman v. Hamm 57 
 
 More V. Clymer 57 
 
 Roberts v. Barnes 57 
 
 Rosenblatt v. Townsley. 57 
 
 State V. Ambs 54 
 
 State V. Granneman .... 55 
 
 State V. Green 57 
 
 State V. Gullette 57 
 
 St. Louis Agr'l Assoc, v. 
 Delana 57 
 
 Nebraska. 
 
 Deere v. Hodges 156 
 
 Horacek v. Keebler 155 
 
 Johnson v. M. P. R. R. 
 
 Co. 156 
 
 Liberman v. State 156 
 
 Martin v. State 156 
 
 Merchants Nat'l Bank of 
 
 Omaha v. Jafifray 156 
 
 Post V. Garrow 156 
 
 State V. O'Rourk 155 
 
 State v.i King 156 
 
 New Hampshire. 
 
 Allen V. Deming 159 
 
 Chenette v. Teehan 161 
 
 Clough V. Shepard' 159 
 
 Corey v. Bath 160 
 
 George v. George 161 
 
 Jameson v. Carpenter. .. 161 
 
 Smith V. Foster 160 
 
 Woodman v. Hubbard.. 160 
 
 New Jersey. 
 
 State V. Williams 116 
 
 VanRiper v. VanRiper . .115 
 
 New York. 
 
 Batsford v. Every 120 
 
 Camrbell v. Internation- 
 al Life Assurance Soc. 
 
 of London 120 
 
 Lindenmuller v. People. .121 
 Koster v. Board of Po- 
 lice 126 
 
 Menendorff v. People... 125 
 
 O'Shea V. Kohn 126 
 
 People V. Buttling 126 
 
 People V. Dennin 125 
 
 People V. Havnor 126 
 
 People V. Moses 125 
 
 People V. Ruggles 120 
 
 North Carolina. 
 
 Branch v. W. & W. R. 
 
INDEX 
 
 235 
 
 R. Co 19 
 
 Melvin v. Easly 19 
 
 Sloan V. Williford 19 
 
 State V. Williams 18 
 
 North Dakota. 
 
 People V. Odell 59 
 
 Ohio. 
 
 Bloom V. Richards 60 
 
 McGatrick v. Mason 62 
 
 Hastings v. Columbus.. 66 
 
 Nagle V. Brown 66 
 
 Shufflin V. Columbus.... 66 
 
 State V. Goode ct al.... 65 
 
 State V. Powell 63 
 
 Oregon. 
 
 Ex parte Tice 164 
 
 Wachsmuth v. Rmitl'ge. 164 
 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 Baker v. Commonwealth 79 
 Com. V. Berks Co. Pris- 
 on Warden 81 
 
 Com. V. Burry 80 
 
 Com. V. Eyer 76 
 
 Com. V. Fields 81 
 
 Com. V. Fulton 81 
 
 Com. V. Funk 79 
 
 Com. V. Houston 79 
 
 Com. V. Linaugh 80 
 
 Com. V. Martin 79 
 
 Com. V. Matthews 79 
 
 Com V. Nesbit 76 
 
 ■ Com. V. Rees 79 
 
 Com. V. Teaman 79 
 
 Com. V. Waldman 79 
 
 Com. V. Weidner 79 
 
 Com. V. Wolf 71 
 
 .Dale V. Kni^p 79 
 
 iTiedchom v. Com 79 
 
 Johnston v. Com 74 
 
 Mahoney v. Cook 75 
 
 Omit V. Com 75 
 
 Sparhawk v. Union Pas- 
 senger Ry Co 77 
 
 Snecht v. Com 71 
 
 Splane v. Com 79 
 
 Rhode Island. 
 
 Allen V. Gardiner 21 
 
 Baldwin v. Barney 22 
 
 Brown v. Browning.... 22 
 Pepin V. Soc. St. Jean 
 
 Baptiste 22 
 
 Sayles v. Welllman 21 
 
 Smith V. Rollins 21 
 
 Whelden v. Campbell... 21 
 
 South Carolina. 
 
 City Council of Charles- 
 ton V. Benjamin 25 
 
 Hellams v. Abercrombie 27 
 Town Council of Colum- 
 bia V. Duke & Marks 25 
 
 Tennessee. 
 
 Amis V. Kyle 87 
 
 I.reyer v. State 86 
 
 Knoxville v. Kno.wile 
 
 Water Co 87 
 
 Mayor of Nashville v. 
 
 Linch 85 
 
 Parker v. State 87 
 
 Texas. 
 
 Albrecht v. State 130 
 
 Eisner v. State 130 
 
 Ex parte Sundstrom . . . . 130 
 Gable v. Houston 128 
 
 Utah. 
 
 State V. Souher 88 
 
 Vermont. 
 
 Adams v. Gay 133 
 
 Durham v. Ins. Co 135 
 
 Lyon V. Strong 133 
 
 Virginia. 
 
 N. & W. R. R. Co. V. 
 Commonwealth 137 
 
 Washington. 
 
 Alain v. Johnson 165 
 
 Nelson v. Pyramid Har- 
 bor Packing Co 165 
 
 State V. Keech 165 
 
 Tacoma v. Krech 165 
 
 West Virginia. 
 
 State V. B. & O. R. R. 
 
 Co 139 
 
 State V. Knight 140 
 
 Wisconsin. 
 Alexander v. Town of 
 
236 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Oshkosh 141 
 
 Knoulton v. Milwaukee 
 
 City Ry. Co ..142 
 
 Melchoir v. McCarty . . . 141 
 Porter et al v. Sanders"nl41 
 Sutton V. Town of 
 
 Wauwatosa 141 
 
 Trowert v. Decker 142 
 
 State V. Knight 141 
 
 United States District Courts. 
 
 In re King 191 
 
 Swan V. Swan 190 
 
 United States v. World's 
 
 Columbian Expositi'n 193 
 World's Columbian Ex- 
 position V. United 
 
 States 194 
 
 United States Sup. Court. 
 
 Hennington v. State 187 
 
 Soon Hing v. Crowley.. 186 
 P. W. & B. R. R. Co V. 
 P. & H. Steam Tow- 
 boat Co 189 
 
 State V. Petit 189 ' 
 
 Church of the Holy 
 
 Trinity v. U. S .210 
 
 Charity, Deeds of, on the 
 Sabbath (See laws of the 
 different States.) 
 Subscriptions and ' collec- 
 tions for religious pur- 
 poses arc, 16, 39, 40, 51, 
 
 79, 90, 143 
 
 Christ and the Sabbath 226 
 
 Christianity and the Com- 
 mon law, 18. 25, 26, 61, 
 63, 65, 75, 76, 123, 152, 
 
 155, 173 
 
 Church and State in the U. 
 
 S. ••• 123, 152 
 
 Cigars and tobacco. Sale of 
 on the Sabbath, 13, 14, 
 ....44, 79, 100, 108, 117, 118 
 Civil institution, The Sab- 
 bath is a, 7, 61, 72, 85, 
 103, 108, 124, 126. ' 13o! 
 169, 171, 206 
 
 Classification of States... 4, 196- 
 
 Colonies, Sabbath laws of 
 the 1, 2 
 
 Colorado, Sabbath law of... 145 
 Opinions of courts of 147 
 
 Common law and the Sab- 
 bath 209 
 
 Concerts, Sun., 32, 49, 100, 126 
 
 Confectionery, Sale of, 44, 
 108, 118 
 
 Congress, Acts of, relating 
 to the Sabbath 179 
 
 Connecticut, Sabbath law of. 31 
 Opinions of court of 33 
 
 Conscience, Rights of, ..72, 
 74, 75, 123, 124, 130, 161, 173 
 
 Constitutionality of Sabbath 
 Laws, 
 
 Meaning of the term 215- 
 
 Opinions of courts relating 
 to, 6, 11, 18, 25, 61,65, 71, 
 85, 86, 90, 97, 102, 108, 
 120, 122, 125, 128, 133, 
 167, 170, 199, 20s 
 
 Continental Sunday, The... 214 
 
 Contracts made on the Sab- 
 bath, 14, 15. 19, 21, 22, 
 31, 35, 37, 38, 42, 43, 50, 
 52, 61, 65, 87, 90, 91, 94, 
 105, 112, 115, 120, 131, 
 132, 134, 139, 141, 146, 
 151, 153, 156, 160, 162 
 
 Contracts involving work on 
 the Sabbath, 15, 34, 62, 
 63, 94, 103, 116, 120, 153, 
 156, 158, 165 
 
 Convicts not to labor on the 
 Sabbath 128 
 
 Courts to observe the Sab- 
 . bath 7, 8, 53, 56 
 
 Damages for injuries rec'd 
 on the Sabbath, 16, 41, 
 63, 96, 105, 109. 134 
 
 Delaware, Sabbath law of... 34 
 Opinions of courts of 35 
 
 Disturbance of Sabbath rest, 
 49, 83, 107, 117, 145, 148, 
 
INDEX 
 
 237 
 
 149, 153. 154, 158, 159, 
 
 162, 165 
 
 Divine authority for Sabbath 
 laws, 7, 25. 30, 37, 74, 
 
 ...120, 177, 210, 216 
 
 England, Sabbath law of.. 1, 2, 
 Exceptions to prohibitions 
 of Sabbath laws. 
 
 Bakeries 96, 100 
 
 Baths, Public 88,' 100 
 
 Bookstores 96 
 
 Charity, Deeds of, (In ev- 
 ery State.) 
 
 Concerts 100, 101 
 
 Drug stores, (In every State.) 
 
 Fruit, Sale of 108, 118 
 
 Hotels, boarding houses, 
 
 restaurants 88 
 
 Ice, Delivery and sale of. . 96 
 
 Livery Stables 88, 96, 100 
 
 Mail, Transportation and 
 deliver- of the, 5, 33, 104, 
 114, 115, 127. 138, 139, 
 
 178, 180 
 
 Marriage contracts 48 
 
 Necessity Works of, (In 
 every State.) 
 
 Newspapers. Printing and 
 distribution of, on the 
 Sabbath.. 100, 108, 120, 143 
 Newspapers, Notices in, 
 
 66, 115, 141 
 
 Observers of another day, 
 10, 20, 28. 37, 40, 49, 52, 
 58, 100, 117, 127, 135, 
 
 138, 143 
 
 Processions 119 
 
 Railroads, 92, 97, 100, 111, 
 
 135, 138, 143 
 
 Soda fountains 96 
 
 Steamboats, 28, 89, 92, 97, 
 
 127, 138 
 
 Theatres 97 
 
 Tobacco and cigars, Sale 
 
 of 100, 108, 117, 118 
 
 Trains of live stock and 
 perishable freight, 6, 47, 
 
 136 
 
 Travelers, 10, 66, 68, 105, 160 
 
 Verdicts by juries 43, 115 
 
 Works necessarily operat- 
 ed continuously, 28, 88, 100 
 
 Excursions on the Sabbath, 
 16, 79 
 
 Fishing on the Sabbath, 10, 
 17, 35, 59, 71, 85. 107, 111, 
 113, 114. 117, 125, 154 
 
 Florida, Sabbath law of 35 
 
 Food, Sale of on the Sab- 
 bath, 36, 58, 68, 100, 107, 117 
 
 Foot ball 113 
 
 Fourth Commandment not 
 repealed 155 
 
 Fixes ratio of rest and la- 
 bor, 26. 27, 72,, 91, 102, 
 221, 223 
 
 Games, Gaming, etc., 17, 20, 
 2?>, 24, 29, 31, 35, 40. 45, 
 49. 59. 68, 85, 87. 100, 
 102, 111, 113, 117, 119, 
 127, 158 
 
 Georgia, Sabbath law of.... 5 
 Opinions of courts of 6 
 
 Holidays and the Sabbath, 
 
 18, 90 
 
 The Sabbath not a holiday, 
 
 94, 156 
 
 The Sabbath classed with, 
 166, 174 
 
 Horse racing, 23, 29, 52, 58, 
 83, 89, 107, 111, 117, 128, 
 157, 162, 165 
 
 Hunting, 6. 10, 16, 32, 35, 36, 
 41, 45, 68, 71, 85, 89, 93, 
 107, 111. 117, 127, 154 
 
 Idaho. No Sabbath law in... 174 
 
 Illinois,, Sabbath law of 147- 
 
 Opinions of courts of 148 
 
 Indiana, Sabbath law of 10 
 
 Opinions of courts of 11 
 
 Indian Territory, Sabbath 
 law of 176 
 
 Injuries received on the Sab- 
 bath, damages for, 22. 38, 
 
23S 
 
 INDEX 
 
 105, 109, 116, 155 
 
 Inteiior, Department of the. 185 
 Interstate railroad traffic, 
 
 138, '187 
 
 Iowa. Sabbath law of 36 
 
 Opinions of courts of 37 
 
 Jews and Sabbath laws, 20, 
 
 90, 91, 97, 98, 102 
 
 Justice, Department of 178 
 
 Kansas, Sabbath law of 40 
 
 Opinions of courts of 41 
 
 Kentucky, Sabbath law of... 92 
 
 Opinions of courts of 93 
 
 Labor on the Sabbath. (See 
 
 laws of States.) 
 Legislature, Power of the. 
 
 169, 171 
 
 Liberty and the Sabbath,... 
 
 26, 47, 54, 66 
 
 Liquor, Legal prohibitions of 
 sale of. 5, 11, 17, 20, 24, 
 29, 32, 42, 43, 44, 48, 52, 
 53, 59. 69. 85, 88. 93, 96, 
 101, 108, 111, 113, 116, 
 120, 127, 136, 142, 146, 
 148, 150, 154, 163, 165, 172 
 Opinions of courts relating 
 to, 9. 10, 54, 69, 84, 85, 
 
 88, 99, 128 
 
 Lord's day. The, 6, 7, 17. 19, 
 23, 25, 30, 37, 41, 44, 50, 
 68, 100, 104, 120, 133, 
 
 146, 157, 163 
 
 Louisiana, Sabbath law of . . 96 
 Opinions of courts ofy. ... 97 
 
 Mail, U. S 104, 114, 115 
 
 Maine, Sabbath law of 41 
 
 Opinions of courts of 42 
 
 Maryland, Sabbath law of.. 44 
 
 Opinions of courts of.... 45 
 
 Massachusetts, Sab'h law of. 100 
 
 Opinions of courts of 102 
 
 Michigan, Sabbath law of... 48 
 
 Opinion of courts of 49 
 
 Military Academy 177 
 
 Milk. Sale and delivery of, 
 2, 41, 68, 79, 158 
 
 Minnesota, Sabbath law of.. 107 
 
 Opinions of courts of 10.-? 
 
 Mississippi, Sabbath laws of. Ill 
 
 Opinions of courts of 112 
 
 Missouri, Sabbath law of 52 
 
 Opinions of courts of 54 
 
 Montana, Sabbath law of... 153 
 Morality and the Sabbath, 
 28. 68, 77, 79, 82. 86, 91, 
 103. 112. 124. 1^0. 152. 
 
 155, 169, 170 
 
 Moral law. The, not repealed 
 
 225 
 
 Navy, Department of the.... 184 
 Nebraska, Sabbath law of... 154 
 
 Opinions of cou ts of 155 
 
 Necessity, Works of pe mil- 
 ted, (In all States.) 
 Works of defined, 13, 14, 
 63, 77, 95, 104, 110, 113, 150 
 
 Nevada. Sabbath law of 157 
 
 New Hampshire, Sabbath 
 
 law of 157 
 
 Opinions of courts of 159 
 
 New Jersey, Sabbath law of. 113 
 
 Opinions of courts of 115 
 
 New Me.xico. Sabbath law 
 
 of 162 
 
 Opinions of courts of 163 
 
 New York, Sabbath law of. 117 
 
 Opinions of courts of 120 
 
 Newspapers. Printing and 
 sale of on the Sabbath, 
 79, 94, 100, 108, 110, 120, 
 
 163 
 
 Newspapers, Notices in on 
 the Sabbath, 66, 94. 115, 
 
 118, 141, 147, 150 
 
 North Carolina, Sabbath law 
 
 of 16 
 
 Opinions of courts of 18 
 
 Ohio, Sabbath law of 59 
 
 Opinions of courts of..... 60 
 Oklahoma, Sabbath law of. . 67 
 Oregon, Sabbath law of.... 163 
 
 Opinions of courts of 164 
 
 Paul and the Sabbath 223 
 
INDEX 
 
 239- 
 
 Pennsylvania, Sabh. law of.. 67 
 Opinions of courts of 71 
 
 Police regulations, Sabbath 
 laws are. 8. 50. 64. 91. 98, 
 109, 173. 187, 205 
 
 Porto Rico, Sabbath law of. 143 
 
 Post Office Department, Pro- 
 visions relating to the.. 178 
 
 Process, etc.. Serving on the 
 Sabbath. 11, 21, 30, 37, 
 42, 49, 58, 67, 83. 85, 90, 
 93. 101. 108, 115. 118, 127, 
 13S, 141. 146. 157, 162, 
 163, 166, 174 
 
 Prohibitions in Sabbath laws. 
 Amusements. 32, 33, 44, 45, 
 
 48, 59, 83, 107, HI, 113, 
 148, 160 
 
 Barbering, 45. 49. 60, 84, 
 
 . . . .86. 92, 107, 120, 154, 164 
 Base ball.... 10, 29, 59, 64, 65 
 
 Concerts 32 
 
 Contracts. (Sec Contracts, p. 
 
 234.) 
 Dancing.... 32, 35, 41, 111, 165 
 Disturbance of religious 
 
 meetings 49, 58 
 
 Excursions 5, 16, 78 
 
 Foot ball 23 
 
 Fishing. 10. 17. 35, 36. 44, 
 
 59, 71. 85, 101. 107, 113 
 
 Gambling, Games, etc., 17, 
 
 20. 29, 35. 40. 41, 44, 48, 
 
 49, 52, 87, 89, 100, 111, 
 113, 158 
 
 Hunting. 6, 10, 16, 17, 29, 
 32. 36, 44. 45. 59, 85, 93, 
 107. Ill, 113, 126, 131, 138 
 Horse racing, 23, 24, 29, 
 
 35, 40. 52. 87, 119, 162, 165 
 Legal writs, etc. (See laws 
 of most of the States.) 
 
 Parades, etc 114 
 
 Quarreling 10, 59, 66 
 
 Recreations 20 
 
 Sale, or exposure to sale 
 of wares, (See laws of 
 
 the States.) 
 Sports. 20, 23, 41, 48. 49, 
 
 58. 113, 117, 140 
 
 Theatres.. 59, 88, 119, 146, 157 
 Traveling 34, lU 
 
 Railroad traflic ' n the Sab- 
 bath, 5, 8. 17. 24, 33, 47, 
 69, 95. 97. 102, 111. 114, 
 
 Religion. I'rotcction of, 30, 
 93. 122, 130' 
 
 Religious liberty and the 
 Sabbath, 25, 26, 62, 64, 
 65, 72, 75. 90, 98. 117, 
 131, 132, 140, 151, 152, 
 169, 173 
 
 Rhode Island, Sabbath law 
 
 of 20 
 
 Opinions of courts of 21 
 
 Rights, not invaded by Sab- 
 bath laws, 30. 53. 64. 71. 
 
 90, 103, 200 
 
 Protected bv Sabbath laws, 
 55, 74, 77, 78, 109. 131, 
 133, 140, 150, 152, 155, 
 159, 169, 171, 202 
 
 Sabbath day, the. First day 
 of the week is, 5, 20. 23, 
 28, 34. 36, 45. 52, 58, 70, 
 83, 84, 94, 107, 111. 113, 
 117, 131, 135, 138. 146, 
 162, 167, 170 
 
 Sabbath, The, a civil institu- 
 tion. 7, 61, 65, 72, 85, 103, 
 
 108, 124, 126 
 
 Institution and permanen- 
 cy of the, 220-227 
 
 Seventh day, Observers of, 
 10, 25, 28, 32, 40, 42, 49, 
 52, 60, 71, 86, 100, 107, 
 117, 127. 128, 136, 139, 
 141, 148, 152, 154 
 
 Soda water, Sale of 44, 79 
 
 South Carolina, Sabbath law 
 
 of 23 
 
 Opinions of courts of 25 
 
 State, Department of 176 
 
 Steamboats, Running of on 
 
240 
 
 INDEX 
 
 the Sabbath, 111, 127, 
 137, 139, 148 
 
 Street cars running of on the 
 Sabbath 78, 92 
 
 Sunday (See Lord's Day and 
 Sabbath.) 
 
 Sunday papers. Publication 
 and sale of, 68. 78, 79, 87, 
 ..94, 100, 110, 115, 142, 150 
 
 Tennessee, Sabbath law of.. 84 
 Opinions of courts of 85 
 
 Texas, Sabbath law of 126 
 
 Opinions of courts of 128 
 
 Theatrical performances, 31, 
 59 77, 88, 97, 119, 121, 
 127, 157, 165, 172 
 
 Tobacco, (See cigars.) 
 
 Toll Bridges, etc., 10 
 
 Traveling on the Sabbath, 
 10, 22, 66, 105, 113, 135, 160 
 
 'Treasury department 176 
 
 Utah, Sabbath law of 87 
 
 Opinions of courts of 88 
 
 United States, Government 
 
 of the, and the Sabbath. 175 
 United States Mail (See Mail.) 
 123, 132, 136, 139, 148. 152 
 Verdicts of Juries on the 
 
 Sabbath 115 
 
 Vermont, Sabbath law of... 132 
 
 Opinions of courts of 133 
 
 Virginia, Sabbath law of.... 136 
 
 Opinions of courts of 138 
 
 War department 177 
 
 Washington, Sabbath law of.l64 
 
 Opinions of courts of 165 
 
 West Virginia, Sabbath law 
 of 139 
 
 Opinions of courts of 139 
 
 Wisconsin, Sabbath law of.. 141 
 
 Opinions of courts of 142 
 
 Wyoming, Sabbath law of.. 113 
 

 Date Due 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,^^9!g8»«»»^ 
 
 
 
 
 ''Sm^'7 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (|) 
 
 PRINTED 
 
 IN U. S. A. 
 
 
1 1012 01003 3613 
 
 
 
 r^>4 
 
 p>f: 
 
 l¥'^ 
 
 'Jil1 
 
 ^r. 
 
 il 
 
 fill- 
 
 
 ■'•ttt- fi i.