"The people of these United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. . . . If the policy of the government, upon the questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the instant they are made, as in ordinary legislation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.” - Lincoln, Court decisions may be classed under two general heads, those based on principle, and those on precedent. and prece A principle is a fundamental truth; a comprehensive law or doctrine; a settled rule of action; a gov- Principle erning law of conduct. A precedent is an authoritative dent defined. example for similar subsequent acts or decisions. No one need fear ever being led astray by adhering to a true principle. From the very nature of the case it cannot lead astray. The only danger lies in departing from it. A false premise, however logical subsequent reasoning, must necessarily lead to false conclusions. Augustine furnishes an example of one who forsook a correct principle to follow blind and deceptive precedents. Here is his own explanation for it: "I was formerly of the opinion that no one ought to be compelled to return to the bosom of the church, under the impression that we ought not to use any other arms than words; that our contest ought to be no other than argument; and that such only ought to be esteemed as a victory which is gained through the force of conviction; for otherwise those would become feigned Catholics who before were avowed heretics. But some of my companions have since pressed me closely, not with reasons, but with facts, which they quote to me in great numbers, whence I have been induced to adhere to their opinion. For they argue with me from the example of my own residence (Hippo), which, having formerly decided in favor of the heresy of Donatus, was afterwards restored to the Catholic unity by means of the decrees of the emperors." 1 Where Augustine made his mistake. But Augustine would better have adhered to his former opinion, based on good reasons, and ignored the precedents which infringed the principle. Had he done so, his name would not have come down to us as the founder of that theory which, Neander says, "contained the germ of the whole system of spiritual founded the despotism, intolerance, and persecution, which ended in the tribunals of the Inquisition." In Sunday law decisions both types are represented, those based on precedent and those on principle. 1" Clark's History of Intolerance," page 213. In embryo, Inquisition. [411] December Term, 1849. Enactments making Sunday contracts illegal, rest on the ground that it is immoral. Logical consequence. America's glory. Equal liberty extends to all. Religious precedents v. American principles. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. DECEMBER TERM, 1849. PRESTON W. SELLERS v. GEORGE DUGAN.1 CALDWELL, Justice, dissenting. If an act, such as making a single contract on Sunday, that in its nature is not calculated to disturb the peace and quiet of the day, can be made the subject of legal supervision and penal enactment, it can only be on the ground that it is abstractly wrong, immoral. If the legislature can punish one act of this kind, they can another, and their power to persecute, to punish for whatever they may consider abstractly wrong, is unlimited. It is the glory of our country that the right of belief in any particular religious tenet without molestation on account thereof, is granted to every one; but this principle can only be preserved by extending it equally to the unbeliever. It is the same great indivisible principle that alike protects humanity, the birth-right of the whole, which each with equal reason may claim, should he believe any religious creed whatever; or should he disbelieve the whole. 118 Ohio, 489. The majority of the Supreme Court of Ohio decided, in this case, that "under the act of 1831, 'for the prevention of immoral practices,' a sale on Sunday of four hundred bushels of corn, is void, and no action for damages can be sustained for the breach of such contract." The judgment of the Supreme Court of Brown county, which had decided to the contrary, was accordingly reversed. From this decision Mr. Justice Caldwell dissented. Dissenting opinions have been a prominent characteristic in decisions on the constitutionality of Sunday laws; and, as is evident from the Supreme Court decisions following, the point of contention seems to be whether religious precedents or American principles shall prevail as the rule of decision in our State courts. Thus far the former rule has largely been followed; but the decisions adopting the latter have been by far the most able and best reasoned opinions. The Ohio Supreme Court at this time held annual county sessions; hence the reference to the Supreme Court of Brown county." decisions. Pernicious consequences of enforcing religious ob servances. We have been referred to the decisions of the Other court for authority upon this subject. Those decisions are all made on statutes essentially differing from our own. We know that many authorities can be found, both ancient and modern, that have gone as far as this decision in enforcing the observance of the Sabbath. We do not propose to examine them, for two reasons: one is the one mentioned above, that the statutes on which they are made differ from ours. Another is, that the pernicious and ruinous consequences of enforcing religious principle by legal enactment have been so well tested, and are so apparent, that any decision of the kind should not be regarded. Indeed, if I were to attempt to present the error into which, I think, the court have fallen in this decision, in its strongest light, I would do it by a reference to the action of the courts and legislative bodies, not only in Europe, but in some parts of this court. country, in its early settlement, in attempting to enforce the observance of the Sabbath by law. It always has and always will produce a pharisaical and hypocritical observance of a religious duty, and creates a spirit of cen-*sorious bigotry, and tends powerfully to destroy every religious feeling of the heart. I know of but one reported decision in the State; that is the case of Swisher's Lessee v. Williams's Heirs, Wright's Reports, 754. The court there say: "The objection that the deed was executed on Sunday will not avail you. Both parties partook equally of the sin of violating the Sabbath, and the law does not require of us to enable either party to add to the sin, by breaking the faith pledged on that day, and commit a fraud out of assumed regard for the Sabbath day." This decision is directly in point, and, I think, good law. I think the decision of the court on the circuit was right, and should have been affirmed. Parallels to decision of the Effect of enforcing religious observances. A previous decision. Directly to the point |