New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-11-03

are looking to his daily labor for their daiy r' "
Capital Its object not protect those VINO ,b can
at their pleasure but to AFFORD rest Of 70 society
could not otherwise obtain IT, Its aim Is to prev ve
Inc physical and moral debility which spTinsib ene e
cent and mcrcful law. 1t gives one day TO he po no
and dependent from the en}oy W SeprTe them il
is theirs for repose for social intercourse Loi ma a.
tSory for the enactment ind the great object
Of all government which is protection ra aoa and
necessity imposed by the condition OF our race anu
TO protect labor Is the highest office OF our laws
Other portions OF his opinion are equally vigorous
in sustaining the legality of such enactments
! NOT MERELY RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE
Mr. Bishop. the leading authority on criminal law
says in a note to Section 499 of his New criminal
Law:
1t is a mistake to suppose that Sabbath-keepin
is a thing only OF religious observance. or a mere
tenet OF sect. There are indeed views as to the
cuiar to sect yet the setting apart by, the whole
thoughts OF men and their physical activity shall be
turned into another than their accustomed channel
R R as Of n 70 ws day. and the
rest and restoring of sleep. Those who. OUT o.
se sabS 10 are or as uwse as he Who to destroy
a bird OF prey should aim his gun where the Dali
would take effect on his nearest friend. -
In some Of the States men of the Hebrew race
and others who do not observe the first day OF
the week day of rest have been compelled
nevertheless to yield obedience TO the provisions
: against Sunday labor. The New-York Legislature
has. however provided that labor which is not car
ried on IN a to disturb the observance Of
Sunday as a religious day may be performed by
one who observes any day of the week as holy
time This prGvsen taken nr oy smpg
day Of rest without indicating that the hrSt Gay OF
the week must necessarily be that day. Decisions
of the courts have upheld such provisions OF the
statute. ,.,. -..... ..o..o,
I Co. Barbour. $751; and "a Han. l4s. benevolent ana
beneficial societies may hold their meetings on sun
loap hot hat MIA vi hall pTi-
vate ground without noise or disturbance Is not a
violation Of the law. which Is aimed rather at
believe in il as religious holiday than 10 interfere
Ths excise law Of 1892 provides among other things
Any person who whether having a license not.
[ strong or splrtuous liquors. wines. ale or beer on
Sunday shall be guilty Of misdemeanor. But, not
holder Of q druggists license may lawfully sell
to be drunk upon the licensed premises upon IN. the
of physTaR to be cg onSe s
to guests of such hotel except as prescribed in sub
! or other similar room OF the inn. tavern hotel IL
censed strong or spr!tuous liquors, wines, ale or
beer be drqK i cfns e w his Sa or ia
rooms or apartments therein, but not in the bar
hotel licensed.
The exception referred to in the last paragraph
only prohibits the tavern-keeper from selling to a
person to whom a sale has been prohibited by the
!
by a magistrate overseer of the poor.
LIBERAL VIEWS OF THE COURTS.
As an evidence of the liberal manner In which the
New-York courts construe the statutes. where the
provisions seem harsh, 1t may be noted that the
General Term of the Supreme Court, In the matter
of James II. Bresln, d Hun. 2O. held. before the
present excise law enacted that a hotel-keeper
was not prohibited from selling wine TO be consumed
with dinners given either to regular dodgers or to
In, de r,
or person licensed to sell liquor, to give any ntoxi-
eating liquors or wines Sunday TO any person
whatever as a beverage The law was passed IN
1851 but It was not until 1887 that an attempt was
made TO convict a hotel-keeper under It's provisions
for serving wine liquor with meals. The law was
moro strict than the present one; but the General
Term held that 1t was to be construed in accordance
with the evident intent Of the Legislature Justice
Brady said:
The statutes are to be construed with reference
/ what was the good which would result or the eyli
that was to be oyercome by their PaSs @1or dur
ing the day without reference to meals. ahd by
Would be no intoxicaiion and consequently no riot
| or disturbance interference in any way win
the peace, which was regarded as lhulSpensaDie
| upon the days named.
The General Term succeeded in constituting the
law literally by arguing that the words "as a
| beverage" referred TO furnishing liquor without
| meals while in another statute the words had
LIQUORS under any circumstances except for me-
chanical. chemical medicinal or sacramental pur-
poses. One act had been passed for different pur-
pose than the other. and the words 1t was held.
might be differently construed in order TO meet the
purpose which the Legislature had In mind.
| The same rule of construction would undoubtedly
! prevail II any one should attempt TO have
| the court construe the statute, as Senator Hiil
| said that 1t might be construed to prohibit man
from furnishing wine to his guests at his Sunday
| dinner The law says that any one who shall give
| away liquor to another on Sunday is guilty of an
offence; but the word give" will undoubtedly be
construed as similar words have been in the courts
OF other States to prevent the use OF suberfuge
TO evade the main purpose OF the law in pro-
! hibiting the sale OF liquor Sunday. Attempts
have been made in other States procure the con-
viction of persons under strict construction
of the law. but uniformly without success.
GIVING AWAY" CONSTRUED.
A Kansas statute forbade the barterlng selling
or giving away intoxicating liquors without a per-
nit. II. II Standish arrested and convicted.
1t appeared that he was boot and shoe dealer.
doing a large business. He and some friends sent
for beer, which placed in the back room Of
the store: and he and his friends drank from the
supply which was stored there The Supreme
Court OF Kansas set aside the conviction. The
| Court said (37 Kansas 6i3):
Any person in the lawful and bona fde posses
sion Of intoxicating liquor may use it he sees Fl i;
he may drink IT or give it away, he may It in
any other lawful manner, or for any other proper
purpose to which his inclination may lead HIN
The limitation is that person in giving away in
toxcating liquor shall not do to evade the pro-
visions Of the prohibitory act: in other words. any
shift or device adopted in selling or giving away
liquors TO evade the provisions OF that act is
prohibited
The Kansas Supreme Court has rendered similar
decisions In other cases. and In otter States the
words dispose Of and gave" have been held not
include the furnishing OF liquor to private CUES
The use Of wine or liquor in private hospitality at
ones home Sunday or any other day ha IS
never been declared Illegal under statutes far
more than those in this State. The view
which the New-Iork courts would take of an at
tempt 10 congtrue the law 10 prevent private hos
pitanty is suniclenLy shown by the words OF Pre-
siding Justice Van Brunt in the Bresin case. He
said that II the words 'as a beverage were 10 in
Guide any drinking OF wine liquor at any time
under any circumstances except for medicinal