Jews and others who observe the seventh day by closing their business places on that day, the privilege of keeping open on Sun day is void as being class legislation. (26 La. Ann. p. 671.)

6. Sunday having been from the earliest days of the law dies non, many cases have come before the Courts to determine to what extent the expression goes. It has been stated generally that a judicial act can not be performed on Sunday, but a mere ministerial one can: that a warrant or attachment can issue on Sunday in case of extreme necessity, as can injunction. A verdict can be, in some jurisdictions, received on Sunday, but no judgment entered thereon. When a certain number of days is prescribed within which an act is to be done, the rule has been generally stated that if the number of days is few and the time short, Sunday is not to be counted, but if for a longer time, as thirty days or more, Sunday is to be included. these matters are largely regulated definitely by statute.

SUNDAY IN GEORGIA.

All

As before stated, the first Sunday legislation in Georgia began with the Act of March 4, 1762, passed by the Colonial Assembly, to be found in extenso in Cobb's Digest, p. 833. The title of the act is, "An act for preventing and punishing Vice, Profaneness, and Immorality, and for keeping holy the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday"-a very comprehensive title. The preamble: "Whereas, there is nothing more acceptable to God than the true and sincere worship and service of Him, according to His holy will, and that the keeping holy the Lord's day is a principal part of the true service of God, which in this province is too much neglected by many," etc.

Sec. I. compels all persons to attend worship. The com piler takes this as being repealed because repugnant to the then Constitution.

Sec. II. provides that 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), and provides a penalty for all persons above the age of fifteen years so doing.

Sec. III. prohibits Sunday travelling which the compiler says is obsolete.

Sec. IV. prohibits bear-baiting, horse-racing, foot-ball, shooting, hunting, fishing or any games, plays, exercises, sports, or pastimes whatsoever, with a penalty.

Sec. V. prohibits inn-keepers, etc., from allowing any persons to abide or remain in their houses (except strangers or lodgers), and prohibits any one from drinking on or about their premises on Sunday, with penalties for all parties.

Sec. VI. authorizes the church wardens and constables of each town in the colony to make arrests and close up places of business.

Sec. VII. authorizes justices of the peace to issue warrants for offenders against these provisions to the wardens and constables to seize any goods offered for sale, and to sell the same, the proceeds to be applied to the poor of the parish. In case there isn't sufficient to pay the fine the offender is to be punished by confinement in the stocks. The compiler says this section is superseded by the Constitution.

Sec. VIII. makes in general terms Sunday a dies non juridicus.

Sec. IX. is as to the mode of procedure in a case of a violation of this Act.

Sec. X. directs that this Act shall be read four times a year in each church by the minister thereof before commencing his sermon. This also the compiler says is obsolete.

I do not find that this Act has ever been amended or repealed by any positive legislation. It can not be denied that all laws of

force when the colony became a State remain of force unless contrary to or inconsistent with new conditions and laws. Yet the codifiers of the first Code and of every succeeding Code have omitted from them pretty much all the provisions of this Act, except those of Section II., and have changed that so that it reads as follows: "Any person who shall pursue his business or the work of his ordinary calling on the Lord's day, works of necessity or charity only excepted, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." Penal Code 1895, Sec. 422. What authority the codifiers had as to making this change is a question.

I will not go into a discussion of the various cases touching on this question, some holding that all Colonial Acts of force on May 14th, 1776, are still of force unless repealed by subsequent legislation, another that only crimes set out in the Code are crimes in Georgia, others that the Code does not make or change existing laws, (96 Ga. p. 10; 42 Ga. p. 196; 37 Ga. p. 412), and 53 Ga. p. 677, which (referring to another Act) says, “Although this section of the Act of 1811 is not embodied in the Code, it is not inconsistent with any provision thereof, and is therefore of force as a part of the law of this State." Another question suggested by the compiler is-When does a law become obsolete in this State? Is there any fixed period of time as to when the Statute of Limitations runs against a positive enactment through non-user?

of

If the Sunday law contained in our Code is all the Sunday law we have, Georgia is probably the most liberal of any the States in the matter. A man may legally fish on Sunday, a lawyer on a week day might be a tailor on Sunday, a tailor on week days might be a butcher on Sunday, in fact, a department store might be conducted on Sunday by a versatile crowd of Jacks-at-all-trades. Sunday base-ball or foot-ball may also be

lawful.

Former Justice Little, in a very able and elaborate opinion reported in 103rd Ga., p. 432, discusses very fully the laws of

Georgia with reference to the validity of a contract made on Sunday not within the ordinary calling of one of the parties. After reviewing all the cases bearing directly on this point the court sustains the validity of such contracts. The same view has been taken in a case decided recently by the Supreme Court. But Justice Joseph H. Lumpkin, in a very scholarly opinion reported in 12 Ga., p. 93, to which opinion I am much indebted in the preparation of this article, says, after citing numerous English and American precedents, "In view of these authorities, and of the fact that our Act (the Act of 1762 before set out) is much broader than the English Statute (the Act of 29 Charles II.), extending to 'every person whatsoever' and embracing every species of 'worldly business,' whether it be in the exercise of a person's ordinary calling or not, we may, I think, assume, unhesitatingly, that an appeal entered on the Sabbath, in this State, would be void." It will be noticed that in this case the question turned on Sunday being a dies non, but the language of Justice Lumpkin as to a Sunday contract under the statutes is very strong and his reasoning clear. In another case reported in 41 Ga. 449, the defendant pleaded that a certain note sued on was made on Sunday, and was given in the ordinary work and worldly business of the parties, and not in a work of necessity or charity. The note in question was made at Russell's Gulch, Pike's Peak, in the State of Kansas. One of the witnesses swore that at the time of making the note, "There was no civil government where the note was given, no state, no county, no political division, no organized territory, no civil laws; when a miner was aggrieved he would call a miners' meeting, a chairman was called, he would put the question of grievance, a majority would decide in favor of or against the aggrieved, and that decided the matter." This state of quasi anarchy or return to primitive conditions was set

up by the plaintiff as being lex loci contractus, and it was contended that it should govern rather than the Sunday law of Georgia. Chief Justice Lochrane, in rendering the opinion, evidently came to the conclusion that no law could not be held to be lex loci contractus. He refused to believe that that fruitful State of Kansas, which, since that decision was rendered, has been periodically bringing forth wonderful freaks to add to the gaiety of the Nation, could be guilty of having no Sunday laws, and that in the absence of any better evidence as to what the law was than that above stated, the court would presume that the people of Kansas were good Christian people as in Georgia, and that their Sunday laws were similar to ours. He therefore held the note void. The head note in this case says: "As the laws of this State forbid, under penalties, any violations of the Lord's day by the transaction of any business, trade or calling, a note made upon the Sabbath day in pursuance of trade or business will not be enforced by the courts of this State under the laws of this State, as such contract is void." It will be observed that the above is obiter dictum as to the question as to whether or not the contract was made in the ordinary calling or occupation of the parties. The decision quoted by Justice Little, in 103 Ga., p. 432, would seem to settle the question in Georgia for the present. If the section of the Penal Code quoted, Sec. 422, is all the law of force in Georgia on this subject, the decision is undoubtedly correct. If the Act of 1762 is stilì of force notwithstanding the way in which it has been boiled down, then the Georgia decisions are not in harmony with those of many other courts of last resort, nor in harmony with the manifest purposes and intents of that Act. Harmony is the law of the universe, the rule of nature, but not of the courts.

In conclusion, the question naturally arises, What is the tendency of all the American people towards Sunday observance? It occurs to me that in no other instance is the changing temper of the American people shown more clearly than in the de