Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-04-01
THE SUNDAY LAW.
TRIAL OF THE FIRST CASE OF VIOLATION
OF TIE LAW IN THIS CITY.
A Saloon Keeper is Tried, Case is Argued
and the Jury Return Verdict
of Not Guilty.

OF MOI OU4Iy.
The casa of The People va. Jacob Nagel'
was resumed in the Police Court yesterday
morning.
Albert E. Arnold, being sworn, testified
that he was employed as barkseper at thu
Ale Vaults by the proprietor, Jacob Nagsle
that business was conducted on the Sunday
mentioned in the complaint the same as OF
week days. During week days the proprietor
Gets free hot lunch. On Sunday, however
the lunch is cold.
John Campbell, sworn-I know the defend
ant, jacob Nagele he keeps the saloon or
the corner of Third and J streets, known al
the Ale Vaults l visited the saloon on the
Sunday complained Of, and found them trans
acting their regular business Of selling liquor
saw men drinking at the bar.
Prosecution rested. Defense offered nc
| testimony.
City Attorney Anderson read Section 300
of the Penal Code, commonly known as the
Sunday law. II has been clearly proven that
the law has been violated by the defendant.
| The law is plain in this case. The able coun-
sci on the other side will advise you to disre-
gard the law in this case. lis his duty to his
client to endeavor to do so if possible. This
question is one of serious import. The laws
of the land must be observed, and every good
citizen will respect and defend them. 1t a
law is obnoxious it is our right to appeal to
our Legislature to have the same stricken
| from our statute books. You have as much
right to say that the laws regarding murder
or homicide might as well be disre5 arded as
the statute in question.
! Judge Mcfarland stated that he appeared
as counsel for the defense. do not come
here to try to worry this community with
long protracted trials, but l am here not to
admit the guilt of my Cheats but to advocate
that thew have not violated the statute. The
statute read by the counsel on the other side
is not law; is not California law; is not
American law. In this case the proofs have
not shown that my client has violated any
law. They say it is saloon. What is a
saloon Il is place where people of society
give entertainments to their friends. The
Ale Vaults then is not saloon. They have
not proven that money transactions took
place They say they saw table of eatab.es,
and also men drinking. They do not assert
that they saw anything Of a business trans
action taking place. l have the highest re-
specs for the religious sentiment of this or any
other community. l have the utmost respect
for the religious sentiment of every individ-
ual. | believe the happiest men or the hap
pest women are those who have religious
or abiding faith in Christianity. We are
f shting t5-day the extremes of religion. We
know that our Sundays are observed strictly
by the people of our community. Nearly all
of our community cease business on Sunday :;
and why? They do it because it is an old
established custom, and out of respect for
thu feelings of others. Why do not the re-
lizious people let this Sunday business alone !?
Why not let well enough alone? The gen
eral observance of Sabbath il sufficient.
Sunday is the general day Of recreation for
the workingman-to spend with his family or
in any other way that seems most proper.
satisfied. They say this is not enough; let us
make { II do as we do. What will be TIE
end of all this? We are Christian
community. What will be the result
Of this issue? Ttoe who have been OBJ
servers of the Sabbath will say, 1--WE Will
observe no Sabbath. l have observed
the Sabbath in the past, but l shall
not in the future. l will not submit to be
compelled to do this" Capitalists will COM
pei their business to be conducted on the Sab
bath, and the result eventually will be thai
the laboring classes will be compelled by cap
italists to work seven days IN the week, and
our observance of the Sabbath will be thing
of the past. The religious people of this
community ought to be satisfied with its
present observance, and not try to push it
upon the people who do not believe in the
Sabbath. This Sunday law has been dead
letter on the statute books for the last twenty
years. Why press it now? The preacher
works on Sunday to please his congregation.
People attend the church because they enjoy
this manner Of spending the Sabbath. Some
70 r,1aaur1-a raSnrts and crarrauG
where they buy their wine and beer, enjoy
themselves and please their friends. Hotels
ere q necessity. Saloons are places of amuse-
ment, where men meet their friends. Espe-
CT lily is this the case in California. Why
should they not, with equal propriety, be
kept open the same as the churches
Why this discrimination Let the
people build churches till their
spires reach the skies, teach their
worship. and follow the ceremonies that were
taught and practiced before the Christian era.
and let the saloons be open on the same
block. Let Ingersoll, and those of his belief,
have a right to speak their minds. Let there
be no discrimination. This is not right it is
not law. In our country we have consti-
tu.iopal government. We live under writ
ten Constitution The people themselves
make our Constitution. This is the highest
law. And if the Legislatures pass g statute
10 conflict with our Constitution it is not law,
and should not be enforcedo or obeyed. The law
under which my client is arraigned is nothing
but religious act. The heading of this law
should read: IAN Act to enforce religion"
DON'T we know that that would be unconsti-
tutional; Is not this law in question law
of that nature? In America the church and
State do not go together. Our forefathers
laid it down that political and religious lib
erty should be protected. A law to enforce
the observance of Sunday is nothing more nor
less than a religious law. In the statute COM
planned Of the words crimes against religion"
appear. Crimes against whose religion
yours or mine As long as don't interfere
with your religious belief you have no right
to interfere with mine. If you have a ma
jority of the Legislature you have no right to
legislate or pass religious laws. In Utah
the AIormons have the majority. and
they legislste in favor of their religion.
In Christian community laws
are passed in the interest of the Christian re-
lision. Is that fair? Is that right! The
Constitution says: 1.-THE free exercise or
performance of religious profession or wor-
ship without preference shall ever be allowed
in this State" Is not this Sunday law di.
rectly in conflict with the Constitution !?
(Mr. Mcfarland read several decisions show.
ing that the law in question has been agitated
from time to time since the Colonial Govern
ment. and has always been decided by the
best legal minds of our country to be uncon-
stitutioual and in direct opposition to Amer
icsn liberty The Jew who observes SatHr-
day, and is compelled to observe the Sabbath
also, is compelled to do that which is con-
trary to his religion, and which is a loss to
him financially. Is it right? Is il just? It
is perfect nonsense, aud perfect farce, to
saw that you are not discriminating between
the Jew and the Christian. The Constitution
SAYS you shall not discriminate. You compel
one mar to keep two Sabbaths, and the other
one. 1t is mere preteuse to say that the en-
forcemsnt of the Sunday law is not done in
the interest OF religion. Il is a religious law.
and the statute plainly says so. II may be a
duty owe to my family which compels me
to work seven days in the week. Under the
Constitution the legislature has no right to
say you shall, or you shall not do
so. It is right guaranteed to us
by the Constitution of our State, and
the Constitution of the United States.
This case Will be followed by about one
hundred of a similar nature; therefore L crave
your indulgence in making more extended
remarks than l otherwise should. Your YER
dict, of course. whichever way 1t Is given,
will have its effect on the cases that follow.
A verdict of aoquittal in this case will virtu
ally end this litigation. hung jury will In
no way decide the matter. l wish to read
Won some decisions of the Supreme Court on
this law. in cases where there was stronger
evidence against the defendant than there is
in the case os NV client Mr.. Mcfarland