New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-12-31
ENFORCING SUNDAY LAWS
INJUNCTIONS DENIED BY JUDGE ARMOUR.
DECISIONS ~ MANY SUITS BROUGHT TO RESTRAIN
THE POLICE.

sion iD thc injunction suits recently oeLdn ab'"'' ~
Boa Of Police TO restrain 1t from enforcing the sunday
law against the plaintiff In tic case OF the Manhattan
Iron Works be holds that tho maintaining OF the hfcs IN
the companys furnaces sunday work Of necessity
AMI therefore not within the prohibition OF the statute
In tho axtysix suits brought by dealers in ice cream
! he holds that ice cream IS an article OF 1000
and that the sale Of it or Sunday on the
premises Of the dealer is not prohibited by the PENAL
Code But candy not in the opinion Of the Court an
article of food although an article which is actually
eaten by ladies and children, and candy cannot be
sold by the ice dealers nor can ice cream NC ue
Iiyered at private houses other places Judge ArnohA
also holds that the giving of lecture or concert on
Sunday is not such an outrage on the conscience oi
Christian public be exposed TO the just denunca-
tous % n pure and wise Legislature The only trouble
about granting nlunoton defence OF Sunday lectures
| ard concerts IN the particular cases ne
fore the Court was the naughty ACCOMPANY
| ments to which the lectures aud concerts were
given. Certain lectures were TO take place IN d
hall largely devoted to the exhibition OF hVlng curlos-
tiesp The concerts which Roster & Bia and Harry
Hill want to give on Sunday to be listened TO au
the cning of beer glasses and the shung OF BUSTING
walters The Superior Court cannot, therefore, tIo"
the least of its protecting mantle over the par
tcuar lectures and concerts IN question: III INC sun
brought by the Adams Express Company the udge ho'us
that the rremediabe misery which persons would be
reduced whose luggage should be kept from them over
| Sunday was sufficient 10 justify the court
IN holding that it work Of necessity not or gam
IN which the philanthrOpc express company wants to
engage on Sunday. In regard to all the other pants
in he Injunction suits Judge ArnOux has not yet filed
his decisions In the opinion III the case OF the Manha
tan Iron Works the question of the jurisdiction Of the
Court is decided The substance of the opinion is as
| follows:
If IL tndisnutaby established by the evidence pro-
duced on the hearing that in the present condition of
| urtainrglc science and skill II Is impossible 10
meiatair blast furnace Without repenishing fires
iNrffi hin
Dodge conclusive upon this point can lLIer RON
the evidence that Mr. Dodge has for nearly lat cen
tury by precep and by example endeayOred TO secure
sanctihed 0bscrv OF sunday Christian day of
| rest Now Mr.. Dodge testihcs that he is acquainted
with this in gland and the United states. and
that ia his earnest desire To relieve his workme from
labor on sunday he offered reward OF $1,000 to any
one who would invent or devise any meth0d by when
such labor could be avoided, and that 1t had never
| been accomplished. The evidence likewise fully
| establishes that the business is necessary
The only queson9raised by the Corporation Counsel
in this case il the power OF ths Court TO elon the de
PENDANTS He contends that the proper course for the
! Them before a magistrate, aud If convicted ont
writ hab corpus and that this Court has no juri5
dicuOn II this Court has no equity Jurisdiction IN TINS
case and this injunction consequently denied the pre-
sun.pt is that the defendants viii execute their
tHTelts. Let contemplate possible result IN that
event. The arrested and held by the MAGISTRATE
| view tue convictions are affirmed, ana on writ or
to the Court of Appeals ney are reversed Ia the
meantime the furnace has cllled-Idt Is the molten
ma for want fuel has become sOded 80 that the IRON
he iux ere. all bound together Ill one lndylslbe
mass This il matter serious that II costs $4,000
to remedy. But this is all The furnaces have lad
TO stand idle during the pending OF tine appeal the
skilled labor employed has been scattered and the con
tracts unulfled that have been previously made ana
for when heavy Dam se9 nave oe E m t ho
word, the plalAuH las been ruined fur az lls II mas
no redress The defendants as public officers acting
under the law assume responsibility for their con
duet And yet the courts cannot ltericIG IL INC as'ei
ton OF the learned Corporation COUNSEL II hS Is True II
is blot on the administration OF justice.
Tn authorities cited do noappy to prevent an injunc-
to but tie counsel for the pantf find no authorities
issue and the Corporation Counsel urges That asino au
hority found restrain the pubic authorizes
Tftf
is eloquent argument IN his behalf
Judge Arnoux then reviews the in the books,
and at the conclusion that the Court has the
power to s ant the injunction aeked Tor.
The following 9 the substance Of the decision in the
Adams Express Company case:
The plaintiffs transact business Of three-fod char
acter tie most Important beng ne tfdnsmssi3n OF
express matt erin irust hrouS estate oI NeW- YORK,
and i'm part through the city oI NcW-l0Ik me recent OF
freight and the delivery OF frcignC in mi, cy. this
vase involves the cOnl rr.uon OF two 'ru"1s tHSt
thr Interstate express tr3c, ana, stc'n0 iur domestic
business the plaintiff Ia respect 20 the first the COM
plant shows that the plan s have no mems o. storage
Oi the DDS DO transit. either al Jersey bV OIL at tie
railroad 20 discharge the goods INTO the stree, "ud 10
compel the paintiH there 10 place guards over ~ with
menus ~ cH't o. e','1 n'i| a. VIZ rr IN
such Presumption would he, to use the language |
Of inc supreme Court Of the United States |
contrary 10 reason ana Justice ana 10 the fundamental
principles of the cal compact" II the Code is
ceptb.e of any construction, however, would III
teicrc with the interstate tc Of the p4int1 SUCH
provisions unconstitutional ana void because they
violate the provisions of the COlituon OF inc UnltcU
states which delegates 10 Congress the exclusive power
TO regulate commerce among the .eItld Stles' Ihat
s decided by Tie supreme Comt OF the United states
The Sate restrict or lrOubIt the business to be
transacted provided does moi violate WEI! known rules
Of legislation and equity. so whore thing may lawfully
proAibun, the law must be enforced and can !
not De restrained by injunction. It is not every act |
that plantf may do on sunday that is exempt IL |
must depend upon the nature and necessity OF the act
There may be pershable articles IN their possession
whose delivery II essential to Their owners The palntih
W oIi{{nay Htsiness of Tccci[in, and SIvrin
Merchandise sunday. No general rule be laid
down 10 govern such cases. They must be dealt with as
they Therefore 10 domestic mtttcrs-tLat Is
goods be received ana delivered IA TINS oItyhe in
junction r. isoucd As 10 goods in transit the injunction
against defendants is continued
Judge Aruouxs opinion in the Roster Bal suit IS in
substance as follows:
The Code contains sections applicable to amuse-
ments. Inc hIsl Is; AN shoot K hunting, fishing |
day prohibited" The second section is directed |
against dlamatlc operate aud Other entertainments
Music included IN the prOnU'tiOu Of thc schedule
he reason OF tits omission may found IN the mpos
lbt! Of laying down any general law That VIII include
worship ANA exclude amusement, From worldly !
point II view many not all out religious services !
might be called lectures f reading were ucuded The
world aud sn-ng. Operas aud iayorte tunes furnish |
mauy OF tue melodies sung ~ churches 80 That IN the
not follow, however that every KIND Of |
singing is permitted on sunday. Some
and all character ugIng-tnat ia in the characerdrc-s
OF any pals likewise forbidden In The case of
ccrtan observation-disclosures he rendered in panurr brbiy
detrimental good morals. One thing certain, that
tie permission to have singing does not enlarge toe
ages sunday, Ia the case Of ecturng to exhibit
the curOsities OF their museums. Toe application for
au injunction must therefore ne denied as matter OF
legal procedure, with the expression OF the opinion of
the Court that sunday concerts and lectures are not III
and Of themselves forbidden By law.
NO ORDERS TO THE POLICE
No general orders were issued to the police