Louisiana.-In Shreveport, Louisiana, a local ordinance (1873) was passed which permitted Jews to engage in business on Sunday. Considering its constitutionality the Supreme Court made use of the following words:

25

Before the constitution Jews and Gentiles are equal; by the law they must be treated alike, and the ordinance of a 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

Maine. No cases of importance have been reported which construe the Sunday laws of Maine.

27

Maryland. In an early case in Maryland, where as we have seen the statute upon this subject has remained practically unaltered since 1723, the court held:

The Sabbath is emphatically the day of rest, and the day of rest here is the "Lord's Day," or christian's Sunday. Ours is a christian community.28

And so, in a much more recent decision involving a SeventhDay Baptist, it is stated:

29

It is undoubtedly true that rest from secular employment on Sunday does have a tendency to foster and encourage the Christian religion. [But by the constitution the Seventh-Day Sabbatarian has the right to observe his own Sabbath.] But it would

25 City of Shreveport v. Levy, 26 Louisiana Annual, 671 (1874). The Sunday Statute of the State dates from 1886.

26 Ibid., p. 672. And see Corporation of Minden v. Silverstein, 36 Louisiana Annual, 912 (1884); State ex rel. Walker and Merz v. Orleans Judge, 39 ibid., 132 (1888).

In the last cited case the court held a Sunday closing law valid because it did not deny equal privileges or immunities to a particular class, nor the rights to life, liberty, property, and due process of law.

27 Kilgour v. Miles, 6 Gill and Johnson, 268 (1834).

28 Ibid., p. 274. So in the original report.

20 Judefind v. State, 78 Maryland, 510, at pages 515 and 516 (1894).

scarcely be asked of a Court, in what professes to be a Christian land, to declare a law unconstitutional because it requires rest from bodily labor on Sunday . . . . and thereby promotes the cause of Christianity. Whilst 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 human.

Massachusetts.-The statute (1791) now in force in the State of Massachusetts provides that a 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 not be subjected to the usual fine prescribed if he disturbs no other person. And on Sunday no shop, warehouse, or workhouse may be kept open, and no manner of labor or business, except works of necessity or charity, may be carried on; no sports or games of any kind may be indulged in on that day except sacred concerts or entertainments. In 1906 an attempt was made to have the General Court enact a much more rigid Sunday statute, but it failed of success.

30

31

The earliest decision under this law dates from 1869.3 It was held there that as this case arose out of an indictment for selling intoxicating liquors on Sunday, and by statute any and all sales of such commodities are strictly prohibited on this day, the defendant could not plead his observance of another day as the Sabbath in confession and avoidance. The court added: ". . . . His conscientious belief might protect him from a prosecution for . . . . acts of secular labor on the Lord's day (see §9), provided he violated no other law."

82

30 Revised Laws, ch. 98.

31 Commonwealth v. Hyneman, 101 Massachusetts, 30 (1869). 32 Ibid., p. 31.

33

In a case determined in 1877 a merchant was tried and convicted for having kept his shop open on Sunday. The court observed:

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, they are not entitled by keeping open their shops to invite the violation of the provisions of the act, even if their ordinary business is shop-keeping. The law prohibiting labor on Sunday is tantamount to a police regulation for the general welfare.34

Michigan. Both the law and the decisions thereunder governing labor on Sunday are reasonable in tone in Michigan.

Besides the usual statute of exemption, which is practically the one prevailing in New York, there are laws permitting Seventh-Day Sabbatarians to do servile labor on Sunday, if this does not disturb persons attending places of worship, and to keep open their places of business on that day.

33 Commonwealth v. Has, 122 ibid., 40 (1877).

35

34 Ibid., p. 41. See Commonwealth v. Marzynski, 149 ibid., 68 (1886); Same v. Dextra, ibid., 28 (1886). Commonwealth v. Starr, 144 ibid., 359 (1887), holds that an observant Jew will not be permitted to keep his meat-shop open on Sunday. Here the defendant opened his shop only to his own customers, all of whom were Jews: the court declared, however, that there were no degrees of opening a shop, and it must be kept closed absolutely on Sunday. In the case of Commonwealth v. Alexander, 185, ibid., 551 (1904), the exception in the statute relating to entertainments for charity on Sunday clearly applied. Commonwealth v. Kirshen, 80 Northeastern, 2 (1907) reaffirmed the decision in the Starr case. On Sunday a Jew may not labor; he disturbs those at worship on that day.

35 Compiled Laws of 1897, ch. 154, §§5912, 5918, 5920, 5922. The last provision is expressly negatived by the statutes in force in Arkansas, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

The case of The People v. Michael Bellet, 99 Michigan, 151 (1894), contains the interesting statement that, if a statute against barbering on Sunday specially exempts Seventh-Day Sabbatarians from its operation, it is not unconstitutional as a piece of class legislation.

Minnesota.-A recent case in Minnesota holds that a Jew who uniformly observes his own Sabbath may not, despite that fact, perform acts of servile labor on Sunday. Such of necessity, it was held, disturb those persons who are attending a religious assembly." The statute of exemption (1888) here is precisely similar to that of New York."

Missouri. The statute of exemption (1854) in force in Missouri is of the usual tenor.3

39

88

In the Ambs case the court held that

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 labor, 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 purpose for which it is set apart, or not, as he pleases.

40

In a recent case the St. Louis Court of Appeals * referred to Sunday laws in the following terms:

However, these laws reckon with the well-known fact that as a Christian people the larger element of our citizenship conscientiously believe the Sabbath to be hallowed time which should be devoted to rest and worship rather than to business pursuits. That these good people may enjoy the right of conscience in the fullest measure and devote the day to repose and the worship of Deity without being molested or chagrined by the noise and turmoil incident to the pursuits of active business, these penal provisions have been enacted. Such is the fundamental notion involved in the Sunday laws, as we understand it.

36 State v. Weiss, 105 Northwestern, 1127 (1906). 87 Revised Laws, 1905, §§4980-4986.

38 Revised Statutes of 1899, ch. 15, §§2240, 2241. See State v. Ambs, 20 Missouri, 214, at p. 218 (1854).

39 Cited in the preceding note.

40 January 7, 1908; Judge Wm. H. Wallace of the court below, has declared that "English common law ... is permeated with Christianity."

Nebraska.—In Nebraska a conscientious Seventh-Day Sabbatarian may perform "common" labor on Sunday."

An important case in this State disclosed the fact that the accused kept his place of business open on Saturday as well as Sunday." Of his plea for exemption the court remarked:

The ordinance provides that its provisions shall not extend to those who conscientiously observe the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, and, therefore, as plaintiff does not observe" that day as a Sabbath, he is not within its provision.43

66

New Jersey. While Seventh-Day Sabbatarians are exempt from the compulsory observance of Sunday in New Jersey (1866), the work or labor they do on that day must be performed within their workshops or dwelling-houses.“

New York. In New York, specially in New York City, with its large Jewish population, the rigid enforcement of the law prohibiting general labor on Sunday (1860) is bound to work much hardship. Yet, the Court of Appeals has held that "the Christian Sabbath is one of the civil institutions of the State, and that the legislature for the purpose of promoting the moral and physical well-being of the people, and the peace, quiet, and good order of society, has authority to regulate its observance and prevent its desecration by any appropriate legislation is unquestioned."

22 45

46

In the Anonymous case the statement is made:

Is it not obvious that by reason of keeping a store open for business on Sunday a temptation is presented to those who have

41 Criminal Code, 1907, ch. 23, §241.

42 Lieberman v. State, 26 Nebraska, 464 (1889).

48 Ibid., p. 469.

44 General Statutes of 1896, V. II, §§33, 34.

45 People v. Moses, 140 New York, 214, at p. 215 (1893). A statute (Laws of 1901, ch. 392), absolutely forbidding the sale of raw meat in cities on Sunday was obviously enacted in the labor interest.

46 Reported in 12 Abbott's New Cases, 455 (1882).