The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-04-02
The Legality OF Sunday Advertising.

Some surprise has been expressed In vari-
Gus newspapers ut decision recently an
pounced by Georgia court In Atlanta to
tho effect that bill for advertising on Sum
dry is not legally collectlblc. The question
arose in a suit brought by GEORGE p. Row
ELL g. Co against the Walter Taylor Drug
COMPANY TO recover an amount alleged TO
bs due upon n contract to advertise the
business OF the defendant corporation In
number OF Western newspapers. The pro-
cecdings In court disclosed tho fact that o
mart OF this advertising was to bc done In
Journals published on Sunday; and tho pro-
siding Judge held that the portion OF the
c,nim relating to such advertising could
not be recovered.
II is rrol,nbly not generally known that
until few years ago the same rule OF law
as has boon laid down by the Georgia trl-
bunal prevailed hero In the State Of New
York. The Revised Statutes prohibited oil
scrvilu labor or work Oh Sunday, except
works Of necessity and charity. unless done
by those who kept Saturday as holy day.
anil whose labor did not disturb other per-
sons in tho customary observance OF tho
first day of the week. The Revised Statutes
also forbade the public salo on Sunday OF
any wares. merchandise. fruit. herbs. goods.
or chattols. except meats. milk, and fish,
aad these could DO sold only before o'clock
IN tho morning. About thirty years ago
suit was brought In the Supreme Court In
this city by tho proprietors OF the Sunday
Courier against one OF their advertisers to
recover tho amount agreed upon in q con-
tract for publishing an advertisement six
months. Tho case WAS tried before the late
Mr.. Justice ROOSEVELT. who dismissed the
complaint on the ground that the agree
nent for Sunday advertising was viola
ton of tho statutory provisions to which
We have referred.
This judgment was sustained by the Cen
elnl Term Of the Supreme Court and by the
Court Of Appeals in 1862 In an opinion by
Judge WILLIAM F. ALLEN. In which all his
associates cohcurred. There was no EVIL
,lence that the contract for the advertising
was made on Sunday. and even II it had
been. that fact alone would not have rem
tlered it void. Judge ALLEN declared that
"a contract made on Sunday for the publ
cation OF an advertisement in newspaper
published on the ordinary business days OF
tho week Is not prohibited. and would be
valid" He also pointed out that the
ground that the work Of setting up and
printing the paper was to be done on Sun
day inasmuch as that labor might have
been done. and in fact was done. in whole
or in part ON the previous day. The con-
clusion Of the court that the agreement was
illegal was based distinctly upon the fact
) that both parties contemplated the public
sale on Sunday OF the newspaper in which
the advertisement was printed. Tho law rs
1t then stood did not permit the sale Of
newspapers on Sunday. and the court de-
clared that it would be difficult to prove
that the sale OF the most unexceptionsble
religious newspaper was an act OF necessity
or charity.
20 The law, however. has been greatly alter
cd In this respect, and now expressly allows
newspapers to be sold In a quiet and orderly
manner at any time Of the day on Sunday.
This change In the statute. which was made
nearly ten years ago. does away with the
effect OF the decision to which we have re-
ferred. and no question can now be raised
as to the legality Of contracts for Sunday
advertising In the State OF New York.