The weekly Thibodaux sentinel and journal of the 8th Senatorial District. [volume] (Thibodaux, Lna. [i.e. La.]) 1875-1898, 1886-07-31
THE SUPREME COURT ONTHE
SUNDAY LAW.

INV |IouIDttiHS tIo oViibS :" Stiiitu
Gus liquors on Sunday, and it is some
times confidently claimed that sHch a
law is in the nature of Il religious enact
ment, and that as snch, it couiiicts with
the rights of freedom of conscience
guaranteed by the Constitution of the
State and United States. For the in
formation of those who may entertain
such views. we transcyibe some extracts
from a recent decision of our court of
highest resort. in which these objec
tons were considered and disposed of.
The case may be found reported in IS
An. page 9l3, and is entitled, Corpora
ton of MindeH vs.. SiIverstein Il Dit
mer. After r~eciting the facts of the
case and the various exceptions urged
by the defendants, the court says:
Eve think, anu we therefore hold,
that the power to regulate the sale of
liquors clearly and necessarily implies
the power to restrict such sales to Ger
tain hours of the day, or to certain days
of the week. The exercise of such Il
power emaGates from the police power
of the State, and is one of the necessary
incidents of the delegated power to
pass all ordinances, rules and regula
tons. which the town authorities may
deem necessary fer the police and GOV
rnmen of the town. The power to
regulate OF To restrict the inherent
rights Of il citizen to pursue legal avo
cation must not be COMPOUNDED with
power prohibiting the pursuit of such
trade or calling. The distinction has
always been recognized in j@urispru
dence, and has been particularly made
In all cases involving the exercise OF
the very power now under considera
ton.
Second. The provision of the Consti
tutio, which S held by defendants as
clashinS with the ordinance is that por
ton of Particle / which declares that mo
law shall be passed respecting an es
adjustment OF religion or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof"
Pretermitting the tree expression of
opinion It's to the wisdom or expediency
OF such an ordinance, we see nothing
in such a regulation which has the re
hottest tendency to establish any relig
ion, or to interfere i'll any way with the
free exercise of any religious bell, i.
While it may be that the leaSo;l for
selecting Sunday as the day on which
the llquor traffic is prohibited. rcsts or
the universally admitted belief in the
Christian world that that day is the
Sabbath Or the Lord. and that it is the
day Of rest. yet the regulation might
we'll be supported on reasons having no
connection with Sunday as Il Sabbath
but only as Il day on which under exist
ing habits of the people, large numbers
congreSate in towns and pass the day
IN %idleness, tending to lead to disorder.
The prohibition complained of does
not purport even to rest On any religi
Gus doctrine or tenet. and it has no pre
tehtIon to impose any religious obser
vance on anyone. 1t is not amendable
to the prohibition contained in the arti
Gle OF the Constitution than the several
provisions of our Code of Practice,
Which declare that Sunday is u dies ron
and.tlat Sunday must not be computed
III certain le~saladelays granted for the
performance of certain legal acts.
The argument that under the effect
OF such a lie Sulation the Inherent right
OF the jew or of any other religious de
nomination. to observe his Sabbath.
which Is the last, is impaired or abridc
ed, Is not tenable. He is left the abso
lutte and unrestrained'freedom of dispo
sing OF Saturday. Ills Sabbath. as he
may deem proper, Or to worship God &C
coIdlng 70 the dictates OF his W con
science. He is hot thereby required to
observe the Christian Sabbath, and he
Is not checked in his right to pursue
other a~Vocations, but he is merely re
strained from pursuing, Oh that day, a
traffic which. in its results may inter
fere with the absolute right ard the un
dnr1n11N It'll - r ~
that day i'll their own manner, with