The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-01-18
BE THOU CLEAN.
No More Excuse for Unshaven Faces.
The Saturday Night Delinquent Nay
Be Presentable on Sunday.
He May Battle, Be Shaved, Sham
pooed and Tonsured.
The Sunday Barber Law Declared
To Be Unconstitutional.
Opinion of the Supreme Court of the
State Delivered by Justice
Turney-The Act Emphat-
ically Exploded.

Special Dispatch to the Appeal.
NASHVILLE, Tenn, Jan. 1.-THE SUI
preme court today rendered decision in
the case OF William Ragio vs. the State,
holding the Sunday barber law passed by
the Legislature in 1887 us unconstitutional
The opinion delivered by Chief Justice
Turney is as follows
Plaintiff in error was indicted for shay
ing customer on Sunday in violation of
the act entitled an act making IL misGe-
meanor to carry on barbcring on Sunday,
and that IL shall be msdemeanor for any
one engaged in the business OF barber TO
shave, shampoo, cut hair or keep open
their bathroom on Sunday. That any
one found guilty Of violating the first sec
ton shall be fined, etc. Section II of
Article 2 Of the constitution ordains No
bill shall become law which embraces
more than one subject, that subject TO
be expressed in the title. We think the
act obnoxious 10 the objection Of non-con.
formity TO the constitution. We are un-
able TO understand that barbcring and
bathing, or barber-shop and bathroom,
are either synonymous or convertible
terms. The subject in the title Is barber
ing. The subjects in the body OF the act
are barbering and bathrooms. There il
nothing in she proof that in anywisc tends
20 make a barbcr.shop bathroom or
show that the term barbering includes
bathing. &.
"When we see two things so distinct in
their uses we are constrained TO hold
them 10 be two subjects, in the absence
OF the proof OF custom making them sew
eral parts OF one head, and together con-
stituting one whole, and therefore properly
one subject for legislation. In our towns
and villages We know that frequently post
offices are kept in stores, law offices, the
Offices OF physicians drug establishments,
shoe shops, etc; that We often see one
man druggist, dry goods merchant, a
seller Of agricultural implements, n news
dealer and retailer Of liquors and cigars,
etc. Now, suppose the Legislature shall
see proper 90 enact a law entitled an act
making il misdcmoanor to retail liquors
on Sunday, aud in the body Of
the act should declare misdcmcan0r for
any one engaged in the business Of tip
pling TO retail any liquors, drugs, boots,
shoes, dry goods, agricultural implements,
newspapers, periodicals. pamphlets, cigars,
etc, shall be guilty, etc Could II he said
that because IL was the custom for one
man 20 pursue these several businesses,
that therefore all come under the head Of
one aud made the one subject rctailing2
Certainly not. Then II the multiplicity
in the supposed ease would destroy the
legislation, the duality OF this net is equally
fatal 10 its constitutional validity. While
Il is the rule Of courts to solve all doubts
In favor Of the consiitutionality OF lcgisla-
tive acts, this case does not fall within
that rule. as Il Is also q duty To recognize
and observe the popular signiiication Of
and distinction In names.
"This act Is lcvclcd at the act Of barber.
ing on Sunday, which means the act OF ono
whose occupation is toshayc the beard and
cut or dress the hair Of others, and cannot
be construed 10 include bathrooms, which
are apartments for bathing. The bill con-
tanning the defects suggested did not and
could not become a law"
TnE COMPTROLLER FILLED 4 RiLL
20 recover from the county costs and
taxes In all cases vliro indictments were
found for felony and convictions
for misdcmcanor. When the case came
before the supreme court Il appeared that
In the original bill the question Of taxes
was not raised. The original bill was lo.t
and q copy was agreed upon by counsel.
This bill, strange 10 say, WIS also lost and
another copy was substituted la which
taxes and costs" were sued for. As this
was not n copy oi the original bill the SUI
prcmc court decided that the question Of
taxes was not before H. The case was ~.
mandcd and the State was ordered to pay
costs in that court.