The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1878-04-11
The Hebrew sabbath ou,.,;.u.


The much talked of and long DELAYED He
brew Sabbath case was heard by Judge Knight
in the Municipal Court yesterday morning.
The government was represented by City Solic-
itor, Cleaves and Hiram Knowlton, ESQ, ap-
peared for Mr.. Miranda. There was very little
in dispute in the case. The respondent and his
father swore that they observed Saturday for
Sunday according to the Jewish custom and
and that on Sunday they opened their shop and
worked in the back part preparing goods. If
any one chose to enter they sold them cigars or
tobacco as on any day. The sign used on other
days was not displayed on Sunday, and the
lights in the evening were not SO bright. This
they claimed they had a right to do under Sec
ton %, chapter 1874 of the Revised Statutes.
which reads as follows:
No person, conscientiously believing that the
seventh day of the week ought to be observed
as the Sabbath, and actually RETAINING from
secular business and labor on that dav shall ha
liable to said penalties for doing such business
or labor on the first day of the week, If he does
not disturb other persons,
The government conceded that it was ouiet
and orderly place, and the only question was as
to whether the section cited applied to the case
in point. Mr.. Knowlton argued that if the
statute meant anything at all it meant that lust
such men as the respondent should be allowed
to prosecute his business on the first day of the
week, it he observed the seventh according to
the dictates of his own conscience. He be-
lieved the law was framed to apply to seventh
day Baptists, Adyents and Jews. If this man
did not disturb church goers and others, he
came within the provisions of the law. If the
law is to protect any one, it is to protect him,
for he fills the bill in every particular.
City Solicitor Cleaves said that it should be
understood at the commencement that this
respondent had not been selected out of a hun
dred Sabbath breakers in the city and perseout-
ed. On the contrary, when he was spoken to
in regard to the law, he invited the prosecution
to settle the case once for all. He claimed that
while man had right to observe any day he
wished, the statute did not intend to give
authority to shopkeepers to keep their places of
business open on the Lords day. He cited as
authority the decision Of the Massachusetts
Supreme Court, recently given in exactly the
same case, the Massachusetts, statute being the |
same as that quoted by the defence The
Court ruled that the statute contained two |
classes of offences; first, keeping open shop,
warehouse or workshop; second, doing labor, |
business, work, &c. The question quoted re.
lieves only the second offence from punishment |
and made the first offence absolute. The jury |
were instructed that they must find the defend |
ant guilty if he did keep open shop on Lords |
day.
Mr.. Cleaves admitted that according to the
statute the respondent had right to go into
his shop and labor if he wished, but when he
opens his doors and invited the public in gen.
eral to violate the law, he was guilty of break
ing the laws of the State. He thought that
the decision of the Massachusetts court was
conclusive, and that as the respondent had adj
mitted that he kept an open shop on the Lords
day, he was guilty.
Judge Knight said that the case was not in
any sense persecution and should not be con-
sidered as such. 1t had been discussed in the
new spapers for several weeks and he had given
it some. The respondent comes here with per-
fectly clean hands and states his case with
,ommendabls fairness. 1t is not ons-sided
case by any means, but one in which there is
something to be said on both sides. 1t is there
fore important that the case should 90 farther
Than this case for final decision, and 1 hope
t will. 1t is not well for an inferior court to
iecide such important cases. The decision of
;he Massachusetts court makes the case all the
more important, as this law is exactly the same
q meaning as ours. The decision seems to be
good one. For instance, carpenter who
observed Saturday, mihgt on Sunday go into
his shop and prepare his tools or arrange his
affairs without interfering with any one. He
,euld not, however, single a house on the
Itreet, or open store for trade. without dis
urbance, more or less. An open shop is no
ioubt great annoyance to great many, there
$ no doubt, but question as to whether this
hop has done great amount of mischief, if
my. L think the case should go to higher
ourt and 1 hope it will. The respondent is
ined five dollars and COSTS
Exceptions were taken and the case will be
AIKEN to the Supreme Court for final decision
which will be looked for with much interest.