Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-03-04
NOT ONLY NEWSBOYS,
But Street Railways, the Tel.
egraph and the Tele.
phone Affected by
JUDGE P0RTER'S RULING.
The Strictest Interpretation of the
Blue laws of 1794 Upheld.
APPEAL TO TIE SUPREME COURT.
Leading Citizens Demand the Speedy Re-
vision of the Statute.
MORE HEARINGS BEFORE SQUIRE ROBE
JUDGE PORTER'S RULING.
APPEAL TO TIE SUPREME COURT.
Leading Citizens Demand the Speedy Re-
vision of the Statute.
MORE HEARINGS BEFORE SQUIRE ROBE

Judge Porter yesterday handed down his
decision on the appeal of the Sunday news
dealers who were fined By Alderman Rohe.
The opinion sustains the strictest interpre-
tation of the letter of the Blue Laws of1794
Major A. NJ. Brown, counsel for the de-
PENDANTS, at once filed a bill of exceptions,
and the cases now go to the Supreme Court
of the State If the ruling should be ad-
verse there the Legislature will act the
popular demand for the revision of the an
tiqusted statute.
Prominent attorneys who were seen last
night held that under the decision of Judge
Porter all street railways, telegraph and
telephone companies, and, in fact, everything
that was not necessity in 1874, because it
was not then in existence, would have to
suspend operations on Sunday if prosecu-
tions were inaugurated. Even the steam
railways, according to many versed in legal
lore, were amenable, though they might
possibly be saved by Federal interference
on the ground of Interstate commerce. The
ruling draws the line between facility"
and necessity" and in the former class is
placed everything which science and
American enterprise have brought into use
in the past century.
Full Text Of the Opinion.
The only lengthy opinion is on the case of
Thomas Matthews, which practically covers
all of the others 1t is as follows:
SIT is established by the evidence in this
case, that the defendant kept open his place
of business on December q, 1891, and that
the Sunday papers of that date were upon
that day sold therein, and that he received
and caused to be delivered to his customers
upon his route as carrier, upon that day,
the newspapers which had that day been
published.
This prosecution was instituted under
the act of April %, 1874, and the amend
ment thereto, approved April 26, 1855, the
later act increasing the penalties as to
Allegheny county. These acts like
all others are to be construed solely
with the view of ascertaining and
enforcing the purposes set forth in it, and
sought TO be accomplished by the legisla-
tion. The evidence clearly establishes that
the defendant did perform worldly en-
ployment' or business upon the Lords Day,
commonly called Sunday We. have no
power to repeal the act of 1894, nor to make
its exemption of works for charity and nee
esSity include works of mere convenience
That carrying on any business on Sunday
NAV be profitable to the persons engaged in
il, that it NAV serve the convenience, or
taste, or wishes of the public generally, is
not the test which the statute applies. The
works of the exemption are works of neces-
sity and charity.
Street Railways Knocked Out.
'fIt cannot be contended under the evil
dence that the object Of the defendant was
to do charity or supply necessity; on the
contrary, it is quite clear that he was influ-
enced bv the usual motives which govern
men when following their worldly avoca-
tions the securing of trade, gathering in
compensation ard laying away of profit. If
we decide that necessity and charity mean
convenience and all things which contribute
to satisfy individual taste, we emascuate the
statute and sweep away the guard which the
Legislature threw around not only the
morals of society. but the physical health
and well beng of its members. To do this
would be for the Court to assume legislative
functions. Our duty requires us to construe
the statute so as to accomplish its purpose,
which was to enforce an observance of SUM-
day. In the case of Spa rhawk versus Union
Passenger Railway Company Judge Strong
said:
at is not for me, called as am to admin
lister the law as it is, rather than as the de-
PENDANTS may think it ought to be, to decide
that what is but anording a facility amounts
TO necessity. The Legislature has not ex-
empted from the prohibition acts which may
conduce to the convenience of individuals,
or even large portions of the people. 1t must
be presumed they considered what incon-
veniences would follow a prohibition of
worldly labor on the Lords day. In view of
them. as well as OF the evil following from
the absence of prohibition of such labor
they enacted the statute of 1874. Their con-
trolling object was to protect the COM
munity from vice and immortality. This they
attempted to do by declaring illegal all
worldly labor and business except works of
charity and necessity.
The Public Convenience Overlooked.
"'But they did overlook public and indi-
vidual Inconvenience. In the proviso of the
act they declared how far worldly labor
might be done, not necessary to the agent,
but contributing to the necessity of the
others. The enumeration in the proviso of
things allowed to be done shows what wa.
intended by excepting works of necessity
from the prohibitory clause
without disregarding every principle
established for the Interpretation of statutes,
as well as the uniform decisions of the
Courts of the Commonwealth upon the
statutes in question, We cannot hold the
defendant exempt from the operation of
the act of l7s4 He is therefore adjudged
guilty
Joseph Beck the Court says: "The testimony
on behalf OF the Commonwealth established
that the clerk was in the employ of the
Union News Company, at the Pittsburg and
Lake Erie Railroad station, In the CITY of
Pittsburg; that the stand of the Union News
Company in question was open on Sunday, |
January "a, 1892, and that the defendant sold |
thereat a newspaper. The testimony of Mr.
Burke, n witness called on behalI of the |
defense, was that at the stands of this COM
pany the practice was to sell newspapers,
periodicals and magazines on Sunday. 1t is |
clear that the defendant violated the act of |
1874 and he is adjudged guilty"
In the appeal of S. j. Irwin the Court says: |
cit is established by the evidence i'm the case |
that the defendant, a clerk of the Union |
News Company at the Baltimore and Ohio |
Station, on Sunday, February q, sold news |
papers at the stand. The same is found in |
the case Of John Brinnam, who sold papers |
at the Union News Companys stand st the |
Union Depot OF February q, and OF Frank |
VIII, who sold papers at the same place on |
Sunday, February q. 4
The appeals were dismissed in three other |
cases, but no opinions were filed. |