The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1888-06-14
Texas Constitution vs.. Sunday
Laws.

laws.
In the Bill of Rights of the state con-
.titution, the following provisions occur:
Article l, section 6, of the state constitu-
ton, anr ounces among other things that,
mo human authority ought in any case
whatever, to control or interfere with the
ri.h.s of conscience in matters Of religion,
and no preference shall ever be given by
law to any religious society"
Section 80 read, "To guard against
trangressions of the high powers herein
delegated, we declare that everything in
this bill of rights is excepted out of the
general powers of government, and shall
FOREVER remain iLyio!ate, and all laws
contrary thereto or to the following pro-
visions, shall be void"
Mr.. CCrley on constitutional limita-
tions, says:
where fundamental rights are declared
by the constitution, it is not necessary
ct the same time to prohibit the
legislature, in express terms, from taking
them away. The declaration is itself
a prohibition, AM is inserted in the con-
stitution for the express purpose of oper-
ating es restriction upon legislative
power" Cooley'5 Const. Linn, p. l76 j.
10 our Sunday laws interfere with the
rights of conscience ID matters of religion
Do these laws give preference to any re-
| ligious society in assisting in enforcing
the observance of any of its religious
views? A solution of these questions
must be reached from consideration OF
the professed objects of the laws and their
real effect, and, where the former and the
latter conflict, the latter is OF chief I'M
portance. In whatever language statute
may be framed, its purpose and its con-
sttutional validity must be determined
by its natural and reasonable effect. Hen
derson VS.. Mayer, 2 Otto, 259.
We will, therefore, inquire whether 1t
appears from the language of these laws,
that they "interfere with the rights of
conscience in matters OF religion" or
"give preference to any religious society"
An interference with the rights of con-
science in matters of religion may
be effected not only by compelling
action on religious grounds, but also
by restraining action for religious
reasons. To restrain person from doing
that which is not harmful to the rights Of
Others, but which others may desire. &c
prevent, solely on religious grounds, is al
interference against the restrained person
; with the rights of conscience in matters o.
! religion.
The decision of courts which have up
held Sunday laws in the United States
have generally rested upon the idea tha
, they were police regulations for the benef
of public health. 1t is safe to say that NJ
I such law was ever enacted TO
such purpose. But whateve
difficulties may have been though
TO exist in the way of the courts passinI
on the motives leading to the enactmen
d of such laws, which have caused som
S courts to hold that nothing appeared o
:. the face OF these laws to show that the
= were passed to enforce the religion o
l. Sunday observance no such ditficultie
g can arise as to our statutes, for they bristl
:, with the evidences of the religious pun
e pose which they are enacted to carry out
+ The very title in the penal code to whic
/: the Sunday laws belong, expressly dis
:, closes the purpose of such laws. The
J. are classed as "of offenses which affect tn
+ free exercise of religious opinion" It'll
e viii, penal code.
Penal Code, article 1874, expressly ex
!. empt5 from the restraints of the Sunda
t laws any person "who conscientiously be
lieves that the seventh or any other day o
d the week ought to be observed as tn
: Sabbath, and who actually refrains fror
Q business and labor on that day for relig
r ious reasons" This section plainly show
Q that the restraints of the Sunday laws ar
i "for religious reasons" otherwise VIII
j exempt those from its purvlew, VIII
f have performed what was to ther
!, the religious duty of observing
9 Sabbath? The purpose of tn
i law, plainly, is to compel every person t
/ abstain from business and amusement
e at least one day in the week "for religion
= reasons" Suppose man does not be
g lieve in observing the seventh or an
other day "for religious reasons" by re
framing from all business and the IN
hibited amusements. Then it is propose
to force him to observe "for religion
o reasons" the first day of the week, an
thus ito interfere with the rights of cor
science in matters of religion"
q 1t must appear from these laws that
u to restrain the action of person for
q day "for religious reasons" is an in
c terferance with the rights of cor
>, science in matters of religion
u then our Sunday laws (which are all mad
parts of title l0ll, penal code, by amende
and added sections,) are prohibited by tn
&c constitution and are therefore void.
II Our laws are also void because they Civ
q preference by law to particular religion
u societies, by exempting from the opera
le ton of the Sunday laws the persons ia
j voring the views of those societies VIII
u believe in observing and actually observ
! the seventh day as Sabbath "for relig
ious reasons
:, Is this not an enforcement by law 70
u religious reasons, of the particular religi
/ Gus views of those who believe in oh
IS serving Sunday by refraiuing from work
g business and amusements that are wort
paying for. Christians, and especial
y lawyers who believe in the observance o
e Sunday, think of this question calml
e while it is not in politics or up before
4 legislature, and determine whether 20
are willing to sanction the doctrine of Ell
q forcing by law any part of the Christia
u religion, in country of boasted religion
n freedom Lex.