Daily Los Angeles herald., 1882-01-29
rhe status Of the sund.y Law.

posed TO any klnO OF trhuie ou QUIZ
day, we avail ourselves, as throw
Ing light upon the question, of an
article which appeared in the edi-
torial columns of the San Fran
oisco Chroni ole, on Thursday, COM
menting upon the fact that gen.
eral belief prevails that the Sunday
law has been upheld as cOnstitu-
tional by . recent decision of the
Supreme Court OF California. That
Journal pronounces this idea an er-
roneous one, pointing out the fact
that the decision was rendered by
Chief Justice Morrison alone, in q
habeas corpus case, which incident
ally involved the constitutionality
OF the Sunday law. The facts were
that the defendant set up that the
Act violates Section 25. Article
~, prohibiting special legislation.
The Judge held that at the time
the Sunday law was enacted the
Constitution did not prohibit spe-
cial legislation, and that the new
Constitution Is not retroactive;
that is, that its provisions apply
only to future legislation and not
to laws passed before the new Con-
stitution came in force. The de-
fendant also held that the Act vio-
lstss Section 4, Article I. of the
Constitution. which ia Identical
with section in the old Constitu-
tion, in reference to "the free exer-
clse and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship" The
Judge held that the Sunday law is
net Q religious regulation, but a
law to be regarded from q purely
secular standpoint, and that it does
not In any manner interfere with
the free exercise and enjoyment Of
religious profession and worship,
secured to all men by Section 4,
Article /. of the Constitution. On
this opinion all the recent proceed
ings against parties in San Fran.
cisco for violation of the Sunday
law are baeed.
Not only has the Chronicle itself
given much attention to the sub
ject, but 1t prints the remarks of q
correspondent who has been equal
" painstaking, aud who puts his
views In the shape OF several
queries, which our San Francisco
contemporary summarizes as fol-
lows:
A correspondent of the Chronicle
asks some questions on the subject
and ventures some suggestions in
conflict with Judge Morrison's
opinion, which we condense and
give to the public for cOnsiders-
tion. He q1eries whether this old
Act wds not repealed by the new
Constitution, and thinks it was for
several reasons.
(l) In that 1t violates Section II,
Article I. of the nav Constitution,
providing that "all laws Of gen.
eral nature shall have uniform
operation.n This Sunday law, he
ssye, is of a general nature, but
does not operate uniformly on all
classes. It makes the keeping
open on Sunday of saloon, work.
shop, bar, clearinghouse or other
place Of business q misdemeanor,
but In its second section it exempts
hotels, boarding-bouses, restaur-
ants, livery stables and retail drug
stores from its provisions.
(2) He quotes from Section 81,
Article l.: "Nor shall any citizen
or class Of citizens be granted priv
ileges or immunities which, upon
the same terms, shall net be grant.
ed to alI citizeps,n to make the
point that the Sunday law does
grant privileges and immunities to
hotel.keepers, druggists, restaura-
teurs and keepers OF livery stables,
which 1t withholds from sa-
lOon-keepers, storekeepers and
those who work in shops.
II, as Chief-Justice Morrison
has held, the new Constitution is
mot retroactive, does not interfere
With laws that we're enacted before
II came into operation, but only
on future legislation, of course the
above points made by our corres-
pondent are of no account. But he
disputes that view OF the Chief
Justice, aud backs up his own
opinion to the contrary by refer
snce to Section l, Article XXI,
which was not mooted in the argu-
ment before Judge Morrison, nor
referred to in his decision of October
81, 1881. This section provides:
All laws in force at the adoption of
this Constitution not Inconsistent tn ere
with shall remain in force and effect
until altered or repealed by the Legis'
The provisions Of all laws which are
Inconsistent with this Constitution shall
cease upon the adoption thereof.
our correspondent uOios tuaG Tue
Sunday law of 1S61-for 1t is that
old-Is inconsistent with the pre-
visious of the new Constitution
above noted, and Furthermore, that
the Constitution is retroactive so
far AZ Il relates to all such laws In
existence before 1t was adopted.
In short, that the new Constitu-
tion repealed the Sunday law, Of
which law he further remarks that
sit remained almost q dead letter
on the statute books ever since 1t
was enacted until the present ex-
element about it," The. points
made are worthy of consideration
pending the final decision of the
question by the full bench OF the
supreme Court.
There thus appears to be as yet
no solid legal ground under the
feet Of the people who are advo-