The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-11-08

From the Pitts0urg OhronioIe Of Last BUeni,a0.
In the Supreme Court this morning Judge
Thompson delivered an opinion in the case OF
SpaThawk ct al, We. The Union Passenger Rall.
way Company, of Philadelphia. This was bill
of equity, by which proceedings the petitioners
sought to obtain an injunction restraining the
respondents from operating their road on the
first day OF the week, commonly called Sun
day. The petition was heard ntSt prjuS before
Strong, j., and the injunction granted, but the
case was ceTti0TdTfed before full bench. In
the opinion this morning, however, Judge
Thompson held that the petitioners had no
equitable rights in the case, and directed
that the Injunction granted should be set aside
and the bill dismissed, at the cost of appelees
The court in arriving at this decision, held that
the proper mode of proceeding was under the
statute law of the State, and that If the pro.
visions of the law were not sufficient to deter
decorations of the day, 1t should be amended
The Judge said:-This decision is not in
tended to infringe on what the court has more
than once held, namely, the force of the act of
1884 and that all worldly business not excepted
in it is liable to its penalties. We mean to hold
nothing else now. For century and three
quarters the colony and State of Pennsylvania
has been content to preserve the Sabbath day
from disturbance by worldly employments and
as a day of rest-a day that might be employed
in devotional exercises and worship, public or
privately statutory penalties only. We hold
no new doctrines, therefore, in this decision,
but adhere to the old, uninterrupted practice in
regard to 1t, by leaving the complainants to the
provisions of the statute to attain the ends in
view, if it be- as suppose it is, TO preserve the
day from mere worldly employment, If 1t be in
fringed upon by defendants. Were we to eX-
tend equity jurisdiction to such cases as this,
for the reasons and on the grounds shown, we
cases against all the great leading railroads
in the ate coming into Philadelphia,
besides In every other case of threatened or
alleged iDtraction of the Sunday laws. and
soon possess ourselves of a jurisdiction beneath
the weight of which no court could stand. If
the penalties In the law be not deemed sufficient,
In any given case, to preserve order and the
tpeace Of the Sabbath the Legislature must
amend the laws. We cannot supply their
detects. For all these reasons, and others which
might be given, we think the injunction granted
below should be set aside and bill dismissed"
Decree accordingly reversed and bill dismissed
at the cost of the appellees. Chief Justice
Woodward and Justice Read also filed concur
ring opinions in the above case, Justices Strong
and Agncw dissenting.
The concuTriDg opinion of Chief Justice
Woodward was delivered in the case OF Kenton
vs. the Union Passenger Railway Company, OF
Philadelphia, in which an injunction had also
been granted. In this case the petitioner asked
for an Injunction on the grounds that he was q
stockhOldeT, and that the operating OF the road
was imperilling the charter of the Company and
endangering his stock. The Chief Justice, in
concuTring with the opinion Of Judge Thompson,
SAID that it was apparent that the bill had
been tled simply for the purpose OF aiding
the PLAINTIFF in the other case; that case
apparent that Kenton. had purchased
the five shares of stock in the company solely
lor the purpose OF aiding Sparhawk and his fel-
fow plaintiffs, and with the full knowledge Of
the existence OF the evils of which he complains
He could not, therefore, be regarded as a
bona tide stockhOlder, and If an injunc
tion was refused in the former case it should
be in this. In regard to the points in the
bill of complainant the Chief Justice said:--
! am fully persuaded and do hold:-First.
That running cars Is worldly employment. in
violation Of the act Of the 22d OF April, 1894.
(Purdon, 924.)
Second. That It is not authorized by the
charter Of the corporation defendant, and is
ultra uires.
Third That the Company had no authority
by their charter to hold or execute a mail
contract.
But, fOurthly, whether these illegal acts con
stitute such abuse or misuse of the companyis
charter as to imperl its existence, is a question
| that can only be tried at the suit of the Com
mOnwealth who Is not complaining, and there
| fore conclude Is in no present danger.
The decree is therefore reversed, and the bill
| dismissed. Judge Strong dissents.
Lrhe substance OF the opinion OF Justice Read
will be found elsewhere-BD EVENING TELB
GRAPH