Daily national Democrat., 1861-09-28
Dailp Natlonal Qemotrat.
rho DecisiOn of the supreme Court upon
the Sunday Law.

|
General principles, will read the decision Of
.he Supreme Court upon its constitutionali;y,
,hev will become enlightened as to the pow
.rs of the State Legislature to regulate the
tnsness affairs of society. We publish the
decision entire:
Er Par5e PeqpIo u.s. AndcrSon.-This case
involves the consLtutionality of the Act of
the last session Of the Legislature, entitled
"An Act for the observance of the Sabbath" :"
Statutes of 1861, p 655) The Act is in these
words: "The Pesple cf the State of Cali
fDrnia, representedin in Senate and Assembly
do enact as follows:
"Section l. Any person who shall, hercaf-
ter, keep open on the first day of the week
commonly called Sunday, any store, ware
house. bar, saloon, banking house, or other
place Of business, for the purpose of trans
acting business therein, except as hereinafter
especially provided, shall be guilty of mis-
demeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be
punished by fine of not less than five nor
more than fifty dollars
"Secton 2. The provisions of this Act shall
not apply to the keeping open of hotels,
boarding houses, restaurants, taverns, livery
stables, retail drug stores (for the Legitimate
business of each) or such manufacturing es
tablshments as are necessarily kept in con-
tinued operation to accomplish the business
thereof nor to the sale of milk, fresh meats,
fresh fish and vegetables.
Section 8. Prosecutions for the violation
OF this Act may be either by complaint to a
magistrate or 10y indictment by a Grand
Jury, and all fines collected upon convictions
under this Act shall be paid into the Com
mon School Fund of the county
"Section 4. This Act shall be In force from
and after the first day of August, 1861"
1t is argued that this Act contravenes the
first and fourth sections of the first article of
the Constitution of this State. The first sec
ton declares that all men are by nature free
and Independent, and have certain inaliena-
Bile rights, among which are those of enjoy
ing and defending life and liberty; acquiring,
possessing and protecting property, and pur-
suing and obtaining safety and happiness
The fourth section asserts that the free eXer-
else and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship without discrimination or pre-
ference shall forever be allowed in the State
These sections were commented upon by
the several Justices of this Court at the April
Term, 1858, when the law of that year upon
this general subject was under review.
The general principles announced 10y those
sections are not peculiar to the Constitution
Of California. They are principles, expressly
asserted or impliedly recognized in almost
every one of the Constitutions of our sister
States. And in almost every State, laws
like the one under consideration have been
passed; and in every instance, it is believed,
where their censtitutionality has been con-
eidered, it has been affirmed. And it is cir.
cuustance of no slight significance that these
laws in States where they have not been as
sailed in Appellate Courts, for years have been
i.s..l all ,,f Il
ornments in which they exist, without a ques
tion of their validity. Probably such strong
concurrence of opinion on one leading ques-
,ion affecting the general community, cannot
be found in the history OF American JurisIru-
dence.
The following cases are express adjudca-
tons in favor of the binding force OF such
Acts:
Specht VS. Commonwealth, Barr, 3l2;
Cincinnati VS. Rice, Is Ohio. 225; Bloom VS.
Richards, % Ohio, 3S7; City Council VS.
benjamin, > Stroh sos: Watts VS. Van Ness,
Hill, 76 slower VS. state, 8 Eng, $50
State IS Ames, 20 Mo, 2l4; Hall VS. State,
Nell, Is; Bode VS. State, Gill, 32G; Jones
IS People, IA, Ill, 1896; Story vs. Elliott
Cowen. 81 McSweeny vs. ODonnel Ala.
It is impossible for us to perceive how, upon
principle apart from all this authority, the
Act can be successfully assailed. 1t is con-
ceded that, unless in some way restrained by
the organic law, the Legislature has full
power to pass laws regulating the relations,
contracts, intercourse and business of the
general society and of the particular men,
hers in respect to each other The general
duty of Legislation is east upon this depart
ment and that duty is to be exercised for the
general welfare; and of the policy Of these
laws the Legislature Is made the Judges.
Accordingly, the codes of all States are full
of statutes regulating contracts, declaring
how they shall be made. how enforced, hat
agtccmett, shall be valid, what vcd, and un-
der what restrictions and conditions property
shall be acquired or titles vest; and in
spect to particular avocations-those of law
yers, physicians, pilots, draymen, hackmen
ard others legislation has prescribed in many
instances the mode in which the members
shall carry on their business. 1t is true that
by the first section eready quoted the cti-
2ens is guaranteed the right of acquiring
property :" but this general clause does not
deprive the Legislature of the power of pre-
scrlbing the mode of acquisition, or of regu-
hting The conduct and relations of the mem
bers of the society ia respect to property
rights. 1t is said that if the Legislature has
the power to say that property shall not he
acquired on one day of the week, or that
hdl sldlI NCJ be CcNCItG TO laDOE TO ACQUIRE
1t, it has the same right altogether to inter-
diet labor and prevent acquisition. But this
would be to deny instead of asserting pow
er of regulation, for it would destroy what
was to be regulated. 1t might as well be
said that if a power Of taxation to the extent
OF dollar is allowed, this involves the right
10 take all the property of the citizen from
him on preteXt Gf taxation. SOFT might Glso
be said. by this process of reasoning to eX-
treme cases that legislative requirement that
contracts for reality should ,be in writing, i'm
piled power to enact that no contracts
should he made, or if made, should be So
eyidenced--as by arbitrary, expensive and
complex restrctions-as to render the at
tempt to make them impracticable
Unquestonably, under our system, the
legislature has power to rcpress whatever Is
hCrtful to the general good. This is great
purpose and end of all government. 1t is
Just strue that in our theory, the Legisla
ture must generally be the exclusive Judge OF
what is or is not hurtful Within this wide
range of power. the Legislature moves with
out further restraint than the limitations
which the Constitution has fixed to its action,
II the Legislature declares that the merchant
snail not keep his storehouse open on Sunday,
'hs is not opposed to any limitation we have
Yet considered. 1t does not prevent the ac-
QUESTION of property any more than the
taxes laid upon that property, or the require
fnent that he shall obtain a license, or that he
Shall keep streets about his premises in re-