Arizona weekly enterprise., 1890-04-26
vides that

shall. for the first offense, he bored through the tongue, and fined twenty pounds, and for the second offense, the offender being thereof convict as aforehsaid, shall be stig- matiz ed by burning on the fore head with the letter B, and fined forty pounds, and for the third offense, the offender being thereof convict as aforesaid shall suffer death, with out the benefit of the clergy.
 Sec. 10 of the same law has this -
 No person whatever shall do any bodily labor on the Lords day, commonly called Sunday, ..... and that every person trans gressi ng this act, and being thereof convict by the evidence of one sufficient witness, or con fe ession of the party, before 3 civil magistrate, shall forfeit two hundred pounds of tobacco.
 Now, gentlemen, that law has never been repealed.
 MT. Grout: Don't you think it ought to be repealed?
 MT. Corhss: think all Sunday laws are unconstitutional, and should not exist. But I was about to say that this law does still exist; and ny refer ence to the statutes of the District of Columbia it will be seen that the police of the city of Washington are obliged to enforce that law. l read :-
 It shali be the duty of the Board of Police, at all times of the day or night, within the boundary of said Police District, to that all laws relative to the observance of Sunday are promptly enforced.
 Now, why has not this law been en- forced? Certainly not because there is no such law, but because it is part of a statute savOring so strongly of the Dark Ages as to make every one ashamed of it. But it is this kind of company in which Sunday laws were originally found; and that is where they belong, for they are but relic of the old system of Church and State. Indeed, this law now in force in the District is as near to representing a Church and State power as it could well be.
 Again if this bill contemplates only a civil law, what right has it to exempt from it's penalty 8 person, simply be- cause he may hold a certain religious faith2 According to the provisions of this bill, man who has certain re- lgiOus faith may do what another man without such religious faith cannot do. This shows that il is re- ligious, and not civil. It matters not what mans religious faith is, it can not exempt him from the penalties provided by law against civil offenses, for the reason that mans religious faith cannot determine his innocence in such case. It is just as wrong for a professed Christian 10 be found fighting in the street as for an avOwed infdel and it is no greater offense for an intidel to be thus engaged than for a Christian. These things are recognized by the courts.
 Take, for example, the law against polygamy. It does not exempt man who happens to have a peculiar re- ligious faith in relation' thereto. Not by any means. One who believes it right, religiously, to violate that law, finds no favor because of his religious belief. Why is this? Simply because the law against polygamy is held to be purely a civil law. In fact, a civil law can do nothing else than to hold every offender guilty, whoever he may be, or whatever may be his religious IaltH. Any eAeillptlOH III ldW Ill favor of certain religious belief i'm mediately stamps the law as religious. But according to this bill, a law may be enacted which will recognize one man as criminal because he lacks certain elements in his religious be- lief, while another man having these elements may be considered good citizen, even though he has done the very same act by which the other man was adiudged guilty; and the framers of this bill must be marvelously dull of comprehension nst to be able to see 1t