It was admitted at bar that no former attempt had ever been made to enforce the statute in question, though it has been on the statute books of the District of Columbia for more than one hundred years. . . . It is proper to regard the statute before us not only as obsolete, but as repealed by implication obsolete. in such essential parts as an advanced and enlightened civilization justifies with due regard for the personal liberties of the citizen. Police Court is affirmed. The judgment of the in the week than Sunday," and observe as a Sabbath. one day in each seven as herein provided." One provides a fine of two hundred pounds of tobacco," or in default (as per preceding sections of the same act) "three hours in the stocks" or thirty-nine lashes" (see note on page 46); the other a fine of ten dollars or ten days' imprisonment, or both (thirty dollars and thirty days as last passed). Neither requires church attendance. Both are religious. Both "prescribe religious and not civil duties." One is intended to enforce a strict religious observance of the Sabbath day" as much as the other. The two are practically the same. To say that the object of one is religious and the other civil is to blind one's eyes and to stultify reason. One is as religious as the other, and as much "the outgrowth of the system of religious intolerance that prevailed in many of the colonies as the other. Every Sunday law in the United States to-day is simply a relic of the old colonial religious establishments, and these of the religious establishments of the Old World. To pronounce one religious is to condemn all. They are all of one piece, and all should be repealed, and not left for the courts to declare valid and in force, or obsolete and not enforceable, as they choose. The setting in which the old Maryland Sunday law was found compelled the court to recognize its religious character and object. Every other Sunday law, either ancient or modern, without such setting, is just as religious. None of them has ever been or ever will be enforced for the "health" of the individual. By prohibiting labor and amusements on Sunday the state simply enforces a day of idleness idleness is a breeder of dissipation and crime, and these are conducive to the health, happiness, morality, and welfare of no one. See "What Is the Equivalent?" on page 740. The command of the divine Sabbath law is, Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” The religious basis is the only true, effective, or permanent basis for Sabbath-keeping, and this rules the whole question outside the domain of civil law. Statute Sunday laws not enforced for health. Decided Oct. 4, 1909. The municipal Sundayclosing ordinance. Not in interests of peace, welfare, or health. Usual ground for supporting Sunday laws. No right to make leisure compulsory. SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO.1 Plaintiff in error was convicted of violating section 1256 of the Municipal Code of the city and county of Denver. The section is as follows: " It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to keep open or conduct any butcher shop, meat market, or grocery store, or to expose or offer for sale or sell any meats, fish, game, poultry, groceries, or provisions on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday." It does not appear that the section, as framed, will promote the peace, welfare, health, or other ends for the promotion of which the police power of the city may be exercised. Upon the authority of Denver v. Bach, 26 Colorado, 230, and for the reasons there given, the section of the Municipal Code under which plaintiff in error was convicted, is invalid. The judgment will, therefore, be reversed and the cause remanded, with instructions to dismiss the complaint. All the justices concurring. 1 Mergen v. City and County of Denver, 46 Colorado, 385. 2 Since the separation of church and state became an established doctrine in the United States, the courts have generally sought to sustain the validity of Sunday laws upon the ground of their being enacted in the legitimate exercise of the police power of the state," "for the promotion of the moral and physical well-being of the people." See Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U. S. Reports, 164 (1900), and case cited below. This decision repudiates this idea, so far at least as municipal Sunday laws are concerned. Seeking to sustain a Georgia Sunday law upon this ground, the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1896, in an opinion delivered by Justice Harlan, said: "Leisure is no less essential than labor to the well-being of man." Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S., 299. Even though the statement be admitted as true, it does not therefore follow that the state has any more right to make leisure than labor compulsory. Compulsory labor would be slavery. Compulsory leisure is no less a tyranny and usurpation of power. And compulsory religious rest, or sabbatizing, is religious tyranny. That Sunday laws are religious, and not mere police regulations," is shown from the fact that in the case just cited, the court repeatedly referred to Sunday as "the Sabbath," "the Sabbath day," and "the Lord's day." See Justice Brewer on page 511. STATE CONSTITUTIONS. PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF THE SEV- LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE.1 Revised up to 1910. ALABAMA. PREAMBLE. We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama: Adopted tional conby Constituvention Sept. 3. 1901. In effect Nov. 28, 1901. That the great, general, and essential principles of liberty and form of government may be recognized and established, we declare: SECTION 1. That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; able rights. that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ARTICLE I. DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. SECTION 3. That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by 1 The provisions of the State Constitutions which either guarantee or restrict the rights of conscience are here inserted, though in the fundamental laws very few restrictions are made upon the rights of the individual; and when they are made, they not infrequently manifest their injustice and incompatibility with freedom by being absolutely contradictory to some of the provisions of the declaration of rights. To illustrate: Section 26 of the declaration of rights of the Constitution of Arkansas declares that "no religious test shall ever be required of any person as a disqualification to vote or hold office; nor shall any person be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief;" and then in article 19, section 1, we find the following: "No person who denies the existence of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court." In other States ministers of the gospel are disqualified from holding any civil office. In the State of Vermont the declaration is made that every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the Sabbath, or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God." Thus it is evident that the religiopolitical ideas of medieval Europe have never been fully eradicated from our political institutions; but absolute religious liberty can never be attained while these church and state provisions remain on our statute books. In the arrangement of the Constitutions, the marks of ellipses are omitted where sections are left out, as the numbering of the sections sufficiently indicates the omission. Where irrelevant matter has been omitted from sections, the omission is indicated in the usual way. Inalien Religious liberty. Restrictions of rights in Constitutions not frequent. Contradictory provi sions. Sunday law in Vermont Constitution. |