The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1885-08-26
The Sunday Law.
To The Editor Of the Press:

10 Tue EUttOf " Tue IT6SS.
The controversy at Old Orchard over the
Sunday law has led to some newspaper
writing which reflects upon the citizens of
the town and as l think somewhat hastily
and undeservedly censures them. The case
is a representative one and may be taken as
a fair illustration of the present status of
the iSunday law question. 1t may be OBJ
served that, stating the facts most favorably
for the selectmen, the facts are briefly as
follows: large number of people so to
Old Orchard on Sundays in the summer for
recreation or pleasure. While there they
must be fed. The officers, however, propose
to prosecute the bakers, grocers and other
provision dealers who keep open shop to sell
them eatables.
Now if the officers have in view only to
prevent or punish the violation of the law
prohibiting travel, work labor or business
on the Lords day, why do they not prose-
cute the thousands who travel from Port
land, Biddeford and even Boston to Old
Orchard for the sole purpose of increasing
their sum of enjoyment by taking in the
beauties of that far famed resort; or why do
they not prevent the running of the trains
which carry the hungry multitude there?
The trains would not run if every man who
did any work about them was fined for every
Otfense nor would the passengers be numer-
GUS II pleasure visit to Old Orchard on
Sunday meant ten dollars and costs. Sup
pose we extend the field of observation Is
your correspondent who is so anxious about
law and order at all disturbed by the whistle
of steamers in the harbor on Sunday? Is
his attention diverted by the noise of car
riages passing his house on that day, whose
occupants are not riding for necessity or
charity? viii the minister who so fiercely
denounces the Sunday paper refuse to read
his Monday mornings although he knows
much work was performed upon it ON Sun
day night?
The fact is patent, whether right or wrong,
the law against travel work or business on
the Lords day is at times violated by large
proportion of the people. What person is
there who can not recall some work per-
formed by him on the Sabbath which was
not work either of necessity or charity !?
How many people were travelling upon the
Western Promenade last Sunday evening?
What necessity called them there?
Now any attempt made to enforce a statute
which is regularly and habitually violated by
many, and sometimes by the majority, must
be unequal and arbitrary. Your correspond
ent can look into any apothecary store in the
city on Sunday and witness the sale of cigars
and soda. | should prefer to fine the man
who sells tobacco rather than the man who
sells bread or potatoes.
A further question arises. What ought to
be done with statute which is absolutely
dlsregarded by certain classes? 1t may be
an open question, but fair play will seem to
be best shown by it's repeal or oblivion.
Finally, the Sunday law is in spirit a re-
ligious one though formally it may be de-
Tended upon other grounds When first
enacted 1t was passed as a law respecting
religion at a time when the State might and
did pass such laws, and whether enforced OF
not at the present time, it would seem that
as the State is forbidden to make laws re-
specting religious observances, this law
should have, so far as it imposes penalty
for work or travel ON Sunday, fallen from
the statute book when the constitution was
adopted and the observance of the day in
that regard been left to the individual con-
science. 81.