The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-06-13

currences OF the day, and at or about the time
OF the arrest has also ialled 10 convince us that
the defendant committed a breach OF the
peace, for the car which be drove moved Utth-
out dctudl noise on disturbance OF anv kind for
distance oil two squares, when the arrest took
placen
The learned Judge then rules that the de-
iendant was not responsible for breach OF the
peace because crowd assembled, there being
no evidence OF a single act OF disorder, nor Tor
the misbehavlor OF others after his arrest
He then considers the question whether the
driving of the car at the usual rate of speed was
q breach of the peace.
The Court alude to the fact that "the cars
were 10 be driven according TO a code OF printed
rules adopted by the Company, and intended to
prevent an actual breach of the peace" and
then say, "What would have been the result of
the experiment about to be triel by the Com
pany Is, OF course, q mater OF mere conjec-
ture.'
As the arrest was made before "the expert.
ment" was tested, the Court ruled that it was
premature and that 1.-THE defendant was en-
titled to his discharge
It seems therefore, clear to nv mind, that the
evidence before the two Judges was not the
same. 1t did appear to both that the defendant
drove The car on Sunday, but on the hearing
before MIR. Justice Thompson, the witnesses
swore to noise interfering with public worship
and disturbing the people," whilst before Mr..
Justice LUDLOW the evidence was, that the car
''moved without actual noise or disturbance OF
any kind"
This is discrepancy which, unfortunately,
IS not uncommon, especially in cases where
witnesses at the first hearing speak under an eX.
citement which abates before the final trial of
the case.
1t would seem, therefore, from these rulings,
that the mere running OF car was not le-
garded by either judge as a breach of the public
peace.
l have thus endeavored, at the risk Of being
tedious to present you an analysis OF the legls-
laton and decisions ruling the case now pre-.
sented to your action.
In my humble opinion the following views are
deducible from the above citations-
/. That the running of railroad car on
Sunday subjects all the employees of the company
engaged In that unlawful act to fine of four
dollars, and in default OF payment thereof to an
imprisonment OF six days.
2. That in addition to these penalties, the
parties concerned may also be bound over for a
breach of the peace where the act is accompa.
MED by circumstances which amount to an ia
traction OF the good order which should be
sacredly observed upon the SabOatn.
3. That where the act is unattended with q dis
turbance of the peace, there can be no arrest.
Chief Justice Tilghman presents the whole
law of the case i'll these clear and emphatic
words:-
"The violation of the Sabbath is a crime
which deserves punishment but when that yio-
ation consists of work without noise or disorder
there is nothing in it like actual breach OF
the peace" (Com. VS.. Eyre, l S. S r., 347.)
| would, therefore, respectfully recommend
that where the complainants qualify TO state
oil facts which, IN your Judgment, constitute q
breach OF the peace as above defined, warrants
be issued for the arrest of all parties concerned
in the desecration OF the Sabbath, the religious
observance of which is Justly regarded as the
cornerstone of public morality.
Where, however, the evidence does not make
out a breach OF the public peace, the remedy
should be confined to the imposition of the fine.
] am, very respectfully, yours,
F. CARROLL BREWSTER, City Solicitor.