Daily national Democrat., 1861-09-28

that by competition, sort of compusion eX
lists to violate the la ws Of health These are
considerations for the lawgiver and do not
come within our province. We merely al
luGe to them to show that the Legislature
may consider and give effect to them for il
is impossible for us to see why that depart
ment may not protect and regulate labor
and the relations of the different members oi
society so that one class may not injure de-
pendent class-the master the apprentice
the husband the wife-the parent the child
or why, if it be to the interest of the whole
society," that no labor, not necessary, should
be done on a given day, it may not prohibit
it on that day.
q 1t is contended with more earnestness
that this Act is opposed to the fourth section
of the first article. The language of that ar
ticle deserves particular notice. 1t contains
a guarantee for the free exercise and enjoy
ment Of religious profession and worship,
without discrimination or preference. We un-
derstand this to be an interdct against all
legislation which invidiousy dscrminates in
favor of or against any religious system 1t
| does not interdict all legisation upon sub
iects connected with religion; match less does
| it make void legislation, the effect of which
is TO promote religion or even advance the
interests OF u sect CT CLASS Ol TcllHlOulSUS. OD
the contrary, the interests and even the rites
of sects have been oftentimes protected by
law, as by Acts of incorporation of churches,
exemption from taxation in some States, pro-
lection of meetings from interruption, and the
like Acts. While the primary object of leg
islation, which respects secular affairs is not
the promotion of religion, yet it can be no
objection to laws, that, while they are imme-
diately oimed at secular interests they also
promote piety. The Act of 1861 does not
discriminate in favor of any sect, system or
school, in the matter of their religion, 1t
found particular day Of the week recog-
nized by the large majority of the people of
the country as IL day consecrated to divine
worship. 1t was regarded 10y all ofthis large
class as day rest, but not by all as a day
set arart exclusively for divine worship or
religious observance. In selecting a day Of
rest from worldly labor, that day would
seem to be most convenient, which, while it
offended the scruples of none, to obey the in
junction, was most familiar to the usages,
sense OF propriety and sense of religious obli-
CATION of so many. At least, the mere fact,
as we have intimated, that the closing of
shops on that day might be more convenient
to Christians, or might advance their rei
gjous aims or views, is no reason for holding
the law unconstitutional If Saturday had
been chosen, a like objection might have
been urged by different secs; and, proba-
bly,, any other day of the week might have
encountered objection from still other sects
already existing or to arise. The Act of
1861 requires no man to profess or support
any school or system of religious faith, or
even to have any religion at all it does not
require him to contribute money to any sect,
or to attend any church or meeting. 1t sim
| ply requires him to refrain from keeping
open his place Of business on Sunday. The
| operation of the Act is secular, Just as much
as the business on which the Act bears is Sec
cular; it enioins nothing that is not secular
and it commands nothing that is religious !;
it is purely a civil regulation, and spends its
whole force upon matters of civil economy
The mere fact that this regulation takes ei-
feet upon day which has been appropriated
as a day of rest by the esanctons of partcu-
lar church. no more destroys the power of
the Legislature to command abstinence from
labor on that day, than the fact, that if the
Legislature appointed certain public business
to be done on Saturday or Sunday-this
would have been "dis eliminating" agaiHSt
the sects according religious sanctity to those
days.
The title of the Act is relied on it is, as
has been seen, "for the observance of the
sabbath" But even if the title of the Act
could be looked to as furnishing decisive evi-
dence of its purpose. We see nothing in these
words which indicate that the phrase was
designed to imply requirement of a religious
character, or that the Act was, in any re
spect designed to subserve q religious pur-
pose. The Act itself in the body of it, eX-
plains in what manner the day was to be OBJ
served, and shows that the object of it was
only to require duties purely civil or secular.
But even il this were otherwise, it would be
difficult to maintain, as the Supreme Court
of Pennsylvania observed in the case in 8
Berr, from the circumstance that the Act
shows one Of the motives Of its trainers was
to enforce a religious respect to the Sabbath,
that this nvalidated it on the ground of its
unconstitutiouality- body add subsan
tive provisions Of the law showing purpose
and prescribing duties or forbidding acts
merely secular in their character.
In our Judgment, the Act of 1861 was
merely the exercise by the Legislature of the
municipal power of lcgisluting for the wei
fare of the general society by law, which
inhibited what was considered injurious to
the public veal that it has general power
to pass laws for this end and it rests with
the ,Liector to show some restriction or limi-
tation on the power; and that this has not
been done ir this instance.
W. do not deem it necessary TO pursue the
discussion. The opinion OF Mr.. Justice Field
in c.r parte Newman e Cal, 5lS)Gscusses the
main questions inv olyed, and more fully ex-
presses our views.
The other point urged has been quoted in
People ex rel. Smith VS.. Campbell Q7 CAL,
$40.
The prryer of the petition is denied, and
the petitioner remanded to the custody of the
sheriff BALDWIN, J.
We concur: COPE. ).
FIELD, &. j.
YYNCuED IN SAN IJIs OBIspo-A cores