Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-07-29

patton, even if there was before, which is
doubtful. 1t is plain, however, that the
"Sunday laws" are meant. The motion to
strike out, and the speeches thereon in the
Convention, especially those of MIR. Outram,
of Oakland, on one side, and Hon. David
Terry, of Stockton, on the other. preclude all
doubt on that point. In fact. as far as L
know, it is not questioned by friend or foe
that the repeal of the existing Sunday laws
without meaning. Why, then. did not the
Convention say Sunday law? Are we to
understand it as q mere piece of
special pleading, or disingenuous
way of making a measure unpop-
ular by giving it bad name? Ii so, it will
not succeed. The device is too transparent.
A man has no need to be lawyer to know
that the Sunday laws are not sumptusry
laws in any accepted or accredited use of the
terms. AS defined by Webster, sumptuary
laws or regulations are such as restrain or
limit the expenses of citizens in apparel. food,
furniture or the like" And I am told by
good LAWYERS that the legal definition is vir-
tually the same Now there is nothing what
ever in any law in the State Of California,
relating to the Sabbath day, that in any man.
per proposes to RESTRAIN or limit the
expenses of citizens in apparel, food. furni-
ture," or in any other way. 1t might with
more reason be said that the laws prohibiting
crime are sumptusry laws. The Sunday laws
merely declare that certain things shall not
be done on q certain day of the week i: the
criminal laws declare that certain things
shall not be done on any day of the week.
And it is as wide of the mark to call one set
of these laws e" sumptuaryD as the other.
But will not pursue this matter further
at present. You, sir, as an honest man, will
not deny that the aim OF the fifth plank of
your party platform. is the repeal OF the ex-
listing Sunday laws in this State. This ID the
issue squarely presented by the party at the
head of whose ticket your name stands, and
this issue I propose to meet. The air is full
of rumors about the influence Of the League
Of Freedom, an infidel association, and the
money of the combined liquor interest of the
State. in the San Jose Convention, in procur-
ing the insertion of the fifth plank in the
platform. But pass these by, for the rea-
son that you, as gentleman and man of
honor, are presumed to be above the intiu-
ence of such considerations; and as to the
Convention that inserted the plank, even if it
were venal / am not in q condition to prove
it, and would not therefore prefer the charge.
1 know that some Of the members Of the
Convention are not liable to the charge, and
l am willing to believe the same Of others
whom do not know. About these things,
however, we must let every man have his
own opinion.
One thing appears to me certain 1t must
have required some very potent influences to
have carried 80 large, 30 powerful, and 80
conservative party az the Democratic, at
single bound, clear over to the very opposite
of all its former acts and deliverances on this
subject. Up to this time the Democratic
party has had good record on the other side.
| We are indebted to Democratic Legislatures
| and Governors for all, or nearly all, our Sun.
day laws. The first was that "To prohibit
barbarous and noisy amusements on the
Christian Sabbath" passed March 16, A. d.
1855, when John Bigler, Democrat, was
Governor, with Democratic Legislature.
The next was an Act passed April 10th, 1858,
ITO prevent carrying on the usual business
avocstions on the Christian Sabbath or Sun.
day." and not repeating any of the provisions
of the previous Act This, If I am
not mistaken, was also passed by q
Democratic Legislature, and signed by
a Democratic Governor, John B. Weller.
This Act was afterward declared uncor stitu-
tional by majority of the Supreme Court of
the State. and it is aisgnifcant fact that that
opinion WAS delivered by the game man who
was Chairman of the Committee on Resolu-
| tions in the San Jose Convention and who
is personally the author of the fifth plank in
the platform, Hon. David Terry, who was
then Chief Justice. A concurring opinion
was written by Hon. Peter J. Burnet. and
dissenting opinion by Hon. Stephen J. Field,
now of the United States Supreme Court
All three of the Judges at that time were
! Democrats, two Of them, Terry and Burnet,