The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-10-11
SUNDAY CAR QUESTION.
OPINION OF JUDGE STRONG
Injunction Granted Against the
Union Passenger Rail-
way Company.

Railway Company, the following decision was rem
pered this morning.
strong, J.-Some Of the cOmplanants in the first Of
these bills are members of different cpurches, aud pew
no ders in church buildings situate the line the
deiendants passenger railway 10 the city Of Phlladel
houses also situate on the line OF the said railway
chartered Under the laws OF the Common weSith have
engaged in the business OF running cars along and over
gers hire on the fTst day Of the week commonly
monweaith ana that they intend to continue the said
business Of running cars on the next SUNDAY and
are charged in the bill to be not only unlaw but also
tbereby deprived Of their right to enjoy the sab ath as
day of rest and religious exercise ree from Al dis
poy ment, because they have been, are, and will be
interruption in the worship, Of Almighty God in their
accustomed places Of puol'c worship or In their own
peace and quiet O the SAID day thereby dsufbed and
broken and because their right OF property IN their SAD
private residences are, aud will contnu to be ntrnged
strain The rom nSnnuna to rS their cars
hereafter over their railway on Sundays. And they
now submit Its afidavits and PROOFS aud move for
The C0mplainantln in tac other biti 8 stooFholdeE
Charges similar Violation Of law BY the defendants
and its threatened continuance 1t charges In addition
states Government, or with some Of the Executive
the United States in and Though the CITY Of Pnadei-
pnia, and over the Streets or some of them and that
S hi a
nnd BY Of scR OS acts the
the Company Is imperllled and the complainant in
wise injured. Hd therefore, asks injunction similar
to hat In prayed S for by the the Tst dill
contract entered into by the defendants TO carry the
mail In this case also there is a motion prel
In support ofthese motions great number of afida-
Wits have been submitted and a very large number
have likewise % been ed on & behalf OF the tn deen
% Searng the % nyveG the "a'
lions; But certainly established that the complain
thn m
different churches along the line of the defendants, @
situate said line and that the defendants en-
gagsd in running their cars over and along the said
that they propose to nue running their
hereafter on sundays So far the facts are clear They
The iacs aSerTed in the bill also fully made
consdernR her inuncnons ought to be gran ed,
defendants Complained Of a6d proved are contrary to
law In regard to this have difficulty The act OF
csS sunday and rHuns
Popose hereafter ter to dc the nee on tha
of what their ordinary worldly employment or busi-
engaged ali other Gays, conducted in the same
View Od Of e @Ro V Sou s Of our Statutory
acments, and of the decision Of this out 40 not
Of law. ''''NO 'O'''
In saying thls utter no new doctrine It was part of
the common law OF England long be ore this S,ate was
be found the books and # has been d DECIDED
to % dnst II speak an of cRrsy
and maliciously The old common law of England is a
SroSaRt It with them when they Settled the WILDERNESS
abandant at the Of liam
and those who came unGer his auspices was to found
While the amplest provisions were made ITO secure
tor reilGioas persuasion practice in matters
ship, there was the most unmlsakable recogntion OF
agreed upon in England" on the 5th Of May, 1852 de-
&c GlSSiT
! q Il TO he II
without the Of the a s and six
ennqted S sae met on @ Of %
iundamen.aI law Of the land DO not propose to 60
the argument No one one has eyer ye been able
mon law Of England belongs inseparaby to the insu-
Ana even If there could have been doubt the deci
sions of this Court have set the matter o rest In
soemny decided that Christianity is part Of on
Court con CURED. They were eminent judges, Thigh
man GIBSON, and Duncan, men whose OPINIONS to thls
their judgment by unanswerable argument. .
CARRIES with ev Obligation to to abstain on the Lords
day from worldly labor and business except WORKS
bath would be no Christianity Hence, even in Eng
% H Rog eRS aw as on
certain extent It's immateral now to what extent
monweath have let us no eqIiySea testimony OF tht
to wSh 9ey s S the uaUn in o. Ems
land to Which have re erred ordained that every rs
Law" of December I, 1882 In its hrst enac tment, re
| peaed substantially the injuction
These laws in my opinion. were dec1aratory OF wha
the common law as introduced INTO IN STATE an,
subsequent statutes enacted in LO 100, ll60 40
and 1874 al in aid OF the common law. They al
enjoned CESSATION IT ON worldly business on the frs
day of the week. Their avowed purpase was topreven
! vice and immortality, and IL was some times asserted
| the inhabitants OF the province and state Il
the undisturbed worship OF God according to the die
| tateS OF their own c0nScenceS.
1he cases have before me-, however, do not demani
maintenance the position that the acts OF The defend
| ants, of winch the bills complain are in violation
| Ii imposes a penalty upon any person who shall do
| perform worldly employment. or business ShatSC
| ever on the Lords Day, commonly called SUNDAY
works ofnecessity and charity only excepted There
certain descrp ions OF business or work. no one
which the work in which the defendants are ENGAGE
need not sDend time 10 prove that when statI
l imposes O penalty for doing an ect II mpledlv pre-
hibts the act, makes 1t illegal IL, therefore DER or
, ing worldly business on sunday were not against
law, This act OF Assembly makes 1t un awfu lG
defendants ore engaged, which they proD lse TO
/ tinue, is not embraced in any of the exceptions
part OF the argument before me IN oppositi,
20 Ihese motions directed TO show, possible th
L on sunday Is work OF necessity, aud there ore not
| violation OF the common law and not prohibited
II the act OF 1884. The argument based ull
numerous afidayns aillrmlng that IN the opini
1 enable persons residing at distance IrO
chuIches as also the ageo and infrm, go retl
II tbnt IL il necessary to accommodate physicians
making professional visits; that IL Is necessary to af
facilities family and social visiting; and that IL Is
necessary Iol the health and comfort OF the poor ca
M chespening the means OF conveyance the rura
NJ 4 all these II NAV be said that most h
II are Convepienc9s for Others and not sities
the dofendants, within the meaning of the Act