And in an earlier case, to which reference has been made," Judge Thurman held as follows:

Of course, it is no objection, but on the contrary, is a high recommendation, 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 spiritual. 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 of 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 delegated to the government; while any preference of one religion over another, as the statute would give upon the above hypothesis, is directly prohibited by the Constitution.

But 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 day because it is the holy day of the Mahometan, and the seventh day because it is the Sabbath of the Jew and Seventh-Day Baptist.

65

Oklahoma.-Oklahoma has no cases of interest to us upon

the subject.

Pennsylvania. The law prohibiting general labor on Sunday (1794) is very rigid in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Jews are not excepted from it.

An early case, dating from 1816, is authority for the proposition that a conscientious Jew can neither perform worldly labor on Sunday nor claim exemption from the operation of a statute which prohibits it, on the score of his faith."

65

* Bloom v. Richards, 2 Ohio State, 387 (1853). Ibid., pp. 391. 392.

66

66 Commonwealth v. Wolff, 3 Sergeant and Rawle, 48 (1816). And a charitable society may not conduct a secular trial of a member on Sunday. Society v. Commonwealth, 52 Pennsylvania State, 125 (1866). See Commonwealth v. Beck, 22 Pittsburg Legal Journal, N. S., 310 (1892).

And in the Specht case" counsel for the appellant laid stress in their brief on these arguments which the court completely ignored in the decision:

1. While it is true that Christianity was a part of the common law, it was not an offense at common law to transact innocent business on Sunday.

2. While the legislature may pass a law prohibiting labor on the Sabbath, by reason of the more or less sacred character of the day, law-makers cannot competently declare which day of the week is the Sabbath.

Rhode Island.-Rhode Island, too, offers us no cases of importance in which its statute (1882) exempting Seventh-Day Sabbatarians from the operation of the local Sunday law was construed.

68

South Carolina.-In South Carolina the Sunday laws (1691; 1837) contain no exemptions in favor of Seventh-Day Sabbatarians. Here the decisions in adjudicated cases have uniformly proceeded upon the theory that Sunday laws are a legitimate exercise of the police power of the government, for the good of society and in aid of law and order, not of religion. Hence, no exemption in favor of Jews and others who do not observe Sunday need be incorporated in these statutes." South Dakota.-South Dakota presents no cases of value to us.

Tennessee. The Sunday laws in Tennessee (1896) contain no exemptions in favor of Seventh-Day Sabbatarians."

67 Specht v. Commonwealth, 8 Pennsylvania State, 312 (1848). 68 Code of 1902, ch. 24, §§500, 501, 503.

69 Columbia v. Duke, 2 Strobhart's Law, 530 (1833); Charleston v. Benjamin, ibid., 508 (1846).

70 Code of 1896, §3029.

71

A loosely-reasoned case in Tennessee " affecting a SeventhDay Baptist, holds in effect that a general statute against labor on Sunday extended to those persons who conscientiously observed Saturday as the Christian Sabbath.

73

72

Texas.-Seventh-Day Sabbatarians are expressly excepted from the operation of the Sunday law in force in Texas,' where a case holds that Sunday laws are valid and do not violate the constitutional rights of Jews under the bill of rights in the State constitution whereby equal rights and freedom of worship are guaranteed to all.

74

Virginia and West Virginia.-In Virginia, and also in West Virginia (1882), Seventh-Day Sabbatarians are expressly excepted from the operation of the Sunday statute (1877)." But only household labor and works of necessity or charity are really included in this exemption, and a Seventh-Day Sabbatarian may not compel an apprentice or servant not of his belief to do secular work or business on Sunday.

Wisconsin.-Wisconsin has a statute exempting SeventhDay Sabbatarians from the operation of its Sunday law, but no case of interest to us has been decided under it by the courts.

In conclusion, the reader's attention is directed to what the late Judge Thomas M. Cooley, of Michigan, in his great work

71 Parker v. State, 16 Lea, 476, at p. 480 (1886). For Utah see State v. Sopher, 60 Lawyers' Reports Annotated, 468; S. C., 25 Utah, 318 (1903).

72 Penal Code, 1901, art. 197.

73 Ex parte Sundstrom, 25 Texas Appeals (Criminal), 133 (1888).

Code of 1904, ch. 185, §§3799-3804. See The Occident, V. III, p. 417; ibid., V. IV, p. 297 et seq., p. 615; Ex parte Marx, 86 Virginia, 40 (1889).

on Constitutional Limitations," has said of the American Sunday laws:

But the Jew who is forced to respect the first day of the week, when his conscience requires of him the observance of the seventh also, may plausibly urge that the law discriminates against his religion, and by forcing him to keep a second Sabbath in each week, unjustly, though by indirection, punishes him for his belief.76

75 Seventh edition, by Victor H. Lane, Boston, 1903. 76 Ibid., p. 675.

NOTE.-Idaho.-The act of 1907 prohibits horse racing, and the keeping open of saloons, and places of business and amusement on Sunday. (Laws of 1907, p. 223; see State v. Dolan, 13 Idaho, 693; 14 L. R. A., N. S., 1259.)