The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-12-25
SUNDAY BASEBALL. CASE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FILES A BRIEF
IN SUPREME COURT.
Hard to Tell on What Lines Me-
Cray Made His De-
cIsIOn.

Attorney General Taylor yesterday filed
MS brief in the case of the state against
George Hogriever, the indianapolis ball
player, who was made the subject of the
test case to determine the rights of the club
to play ball on Sunday. In the lower court
the case was decided against the state ON
a motion to quash the case for the follow
ing reasons, set forth in the brief:
That the affidavit does not state facts
suncient to constitute public offense; that
the act OF the Legislature upon which said
aIndavit Is based Is unconstitutional; that
SAID act OF the Legislature is ambiguous and
script, p. 6.')
state do not KNOW, says the attorney gem
eral, upon what grounds the court Sus-
talned the motion to quash. 1t was stated
In the newspapers at the time that the court
held the baseball law unconstitutional. Err
ror is assigned in this court in that the
court erred in sustaining the motion of de-
Ienqant, George Hogriever, to quash said
aindavit filed in said cause The law under
winch said affidavit was drawn is as fol-
" 1t shall be unlawful for any person or
persons to engage in playing any game of
DaseDaH where any fee is charged, or where
any reward or prize or profit, or article Of
VaIue, is depending upon the result of such
game, on the first day of the week, com
monty called Sunday. and every person so
oHendlng shall be deemed guilty of a mis-
9emeahor, and upon conviction shall be
nned IN any sum not exceeding $25.'
AS oetore stated, counsel Tor the state
are not aware upon what grounds it was
commended in the court below that the act
OF 1880, forbidding the playing of baseball
on sunday, was unconstitutional, nor on
what grounds 1t was so held by the Marion
criminal Court. 1t will, therefore, be neces-
sarY to take up all possible objections which
Sn4l 70 cOunseI, ana DISCUSS thenl az
tengtn, so that every possible contention
may be presented to the court. Only three
possible objections have occurred to coun-
sci as likely to have been commended for in
the court below. and SAl6V are that the act
lmpairs the constitutional guarantee % OF
rehgious liberty; 90 of personal liberty; CD
against class legislation.
Altogether aside and apart from the very
many decisions upon this question, 1t is diff
hcult to sea how any law which simply for
DDS playing any game of baseball, where
any Zee is charged, or where any reward or
prize or profit, or article of value, is depend
ent upon the result of the game, on the
first day of the week, commonly called Sum
day., can Interfere with any man S right of
worship or freedom of thought, or give pref
be no doubt whatever that it was within the
authority of the General Assembly, in the
exercise of the police power, If it deemed
the playing Of baseball for money detri-
mental to the public welfare, to forbid it al
together, in precisely the same way that the
common consent of mankind, in all civilized
countries, has forbidden prize fighting, bull
fighting, cock fighting, rat batting and SIM
liar amusements, or, as the law of Indiana
has forbidden anyone to permit minors to
play billiards or pool or purchase intoxi-
eating liquors or cigarettes.
LAS to the guaranty of life, liberty and the
pursuit OF happiness, it has been repeatedly
commended that this guarantees to the indi-
vtdual complete liberty of action. AS to this
contention, it may be said that the liberty
guaranteed is not absolute freedom Of ac-
ton; 1t Is such freedom Of the particular in
dividual as in no way interferes with the
greatest happiness of the greatest number;
s and mat o,i the e right to pursue happiness
piness which the individual, under our Con-
stltution, is permitted to pursue is limited
even more than the liberty guaranteed; and
no man is at liberty to pursue happiness in
manner which may injuriously affect the
interests of another or of the public. In
view OF the possibility that it may be con-
ton, 1T may be as well to furnish authorities
upon that proposition. The Indiana Consti-
tuition contains the following provision:
Article /. Sec. 23-The General AS
Sembly shall not grant to any citizen, or
class Of citizens, privileges or immunities,
whfch, upon the same terms, shall not equal
ly belong to all citizens.
1.-THE Constitution of the United States in
the fourteenth amendment, provides that
NO State shall make or enforce any law,
which shall abridge the privileges or immu-
mites of citizens of the United States, nor
the equal protection of the laws
1T is indeed difficult to see how a statute
making it unlawful for any person or per-
ball, where any fee is charged, or where
any reward or prize or profit or article of
value is depending upon the result Of such
legislation. The law forbids the doing of q
certain act, and the prohibition is universal,
applying applying not to any particular class or
Every citizen in the State, without regard
TO occupation, is forbidden on this day to
engage In baseball playing for pay or re-
constitutionally forbidden in an act which
includes 1t with other offenses, it must be
in which it only is denounced which act was
OBVIOUSLY passed for the purpose OF sup
plementing the general Sunday. law, and
supplying what the Legislature deemed an
omission. There Is no doubt that the Legis-
lature has the same right to forbid avoca-
lions lions that 1t has to forbid vocations. Under
Ihe decision last cited, however, It has not
cone so, generally. by the Sunday law Sum
Day baseball playing could not strictly be
properly styled as quarreiing: it is Certainly
not common labor, and, under the ruling OF
the Appellate Court, is not the usual voca-
professionals. ~
"Inasmuch as common labor is forbidden
ana me pursuit of ones usual vocation is
1t Is class legislation to include-as the act
or 1885 did-in the form Of labor forbidden
mat which, while 1t is not perhaps the la
is an occupation by which he generally
makes the greater portion of his income?
Can there be any reason why a man who is
not permitted to complain that he is for
Dldden TO follow his occupation as a ma
chlnist or clerk on Sunday during the winter
tl1ne, should be heard to complain that he is
not permitted to follow on Sundays the pur-
suit in which he is engaged all through the
summer! Surely an act which includes in
the forbidden classes of labor a form of
labor which has grown up long since the
original Sunday law of Indiana was enacted
will not be held to be class legislation, SIM
ply because it supplies a penalty against
form of labor which, at the time of the pas
sage OF the original act did not exist With
this statute the law is complete, and it is
difficult to imagine any form of labor which
Is not now forbidden by the law. If the
violent physical exercises of athletes iipon
seven days of the week was detrimental to
them as part of the public or that public
demoralizing. in the same sense that the