The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-09-13
SUNDAY LAWS.
Argument in the Decision of the SUI
preme Court of Missouri.

Some weeks ago Judge McCray decided
that baseball playing was allowable on
Sunday. This strange decision called out
frequent protests from the religious element
of the city and retorts from infidels. An in
fidel friend of mine wrote an article in de-
Tense of the judge and against all Sunday
laws. 1 was astonished that these infidel
arguments did not produce reply from our
ministers, who are expected to defend the
Christian religion. Ny inf.del friend cut
out and sent me the slip containing his ar
gument, defying me to answer. The best
answer that can be given to all such argu-
ments is the decision of the Supreme Court
OF Missouri. 1t appears that in 1854 one
Peter Ambs. the keeper of a saloon, was
prosecuted and condemned by the lower
courts for violating the Sunday laws. The
case was carried to the Supreme Court and
this was the decision of the court in the
case. The report can be found in Goth Mo-,
2. PA, and is as follows:
Peter Ambs was indicted for keeping
open an ale house on Sunday and for SELF
ing intoxicating liquors on the same day.
Both offenses were included in one indict-
ment, though in separate counts. He was
convicted and fined on each count by one
Judgment From this judgment he appealed
to this court
''First-The main question argued in the
briefs of the counsel in this case was the
constitutionality of the law exacting the
observance of Sunday as a day of rest. 1t
laws enjoining an abstinence from labor on
Sunday, under a penalty, and prohibiting
the opening of ale and beer houses, and
selling intoxicating liquors on that day,
were dictated by religious motives ard,
consequently, could not be sustained, being
inconsistent with the State Constitution,
which ordains that all men have a natural
and indefeasible right to worship the AL
mighty God according to the dictates of
their own consciences; that no man can be
compelled to erect, support or attend any
place of worship; that no human authority
can control or interfere with the rights of
conscience; that no person can ever be hurt,
moleSted or restrained in his religious pro-
fession or sentiments, If he did not disturb
others in their religious worship; that no
preference can ever be given by law to any
sect or mode of worship.
The statute compelling the observance of
Sunday as day of rest from worldly labor
expressly provides that it shall not extend
to any person who is a member of relig-
ious society by whom any other than the
first day of the week is observed as a Sab
bath. so that he observes such Sabbath
Those who question the conStitutiOnality
OF our Sunday laws seem to imagine that
the Constitution is to be regarded an
instrument framed for State composed of
strangers collected from all quarters CT the
globe, each with a religion of his own, bound
by no previous social ties, nor sympathizing
in any common "reminiscences of the past;
that. unlike ordinary laws, it is not to be
construed in reference to the State and
but that tho words in which it was compre-
hended are alone to be regarded, without
respect to the history of the people for
whom 1t was made.
1T is apprehended that such is not the
mode by which our organic law is to be
interpreted. We must regard the people for
whom 1t was ordained. 1t appears to have
been made by Christian men, The Consti-
tuition, on its face, shows that the Christian
religion was the religion of its trainers.
At the conclusion of that instrument it is
solemnly affirmed by it's authors, under their
hands, that it was done in the year of our
Lord one thousand eight hundred and TWEEN
ty-a form adopted by all Christian nations,
In solemn public acts, to manifest the re-
ligion to which they. adhere.
t,a Long before the convention whiah
perience had shown that the mild voice of
Christianity was unable to secure the due
observance of Sunday as day of rest. The
arm of the civil power had interposed. The
convention sat under a law exacting a ces-
sation from labor on Sunday. The journal
of the convention will show that this law
was obeyed by it's members as SUCH by adj
Journment from Saturday until Monday. In
the tenth section of the fourth article Of
the Constitution it is provided that. if the
Governor does not return a bill within ten
days (Sundey excepted), it shall become a
law without his signature. Although 1T may
he said that this provision leaves it OPP
tional with the Governor whether he will
consider the bill Sunday, yet regard be-
ing had to the circumstances under which
1t was inserted, can any impartial mind
deny but that 1t contains a recognition of
the Lords day, as a day exempt by law
from. all worldly pursuits? the trainers of
the Constitution, then, recognized Sunday
as day to be observed, acting themselves
under law which exacted a compulsive
observance of it. If a compulsive observance
OF the Lords day as day Of rest had been
deemed inconsistent with the principles con-
tanned in the Constitution, can anything be
clearer than, as the matter was so plainly
ana palpably before the convention, spe--
cific condemnation of the Sunday law would
have been engrafted upon it? So far from
1t, Sunday was recognized day of rest,
When at the time cessation from labor on
that day was coerced by a penalty They,
then, who engrafted on our Constitution the
principles of religious freedom therein con-
tanned did not regard the compulsory OBJ
servance of Sunday as day of rest a viola
ton of those principles They deemed a stat
ute compelling the observance of Sunday
necessary to secure a full enjoyment of the
rights of conscience How could those who
conscientiously believe that Sunday is hal
lowed time, to be devoted to the worship of
God, enjoy themselves in it's observance
amidst all the turmoil and hustle of worldly
pursuits, amidst scenes by which the day
was desecraIed, which they cOnscientiously
believed to be holy?
THE Sunday law was not intended to
compel people to go to church or to per-
form any religious act as an expression of
preference for any particular creed or Sect
but was designed to coerce a cessation from
labor that those who cOnscientiously be-
lieved that the day was set apart for the
worship of God might not be disturbed in
the performance of their religious duties
Every man is free to use the day for the
purpose for which ii is set apart or not, as
he pleases. If he sees proper to devote it
to religious purposes the law protects him
from the disturbance of others: If he will
not employ himself in religious duties he is
restrained from interrupting those who do
Thus The law, so far from affecting reli-
gious freedom, is means by which the
rights of conscience are enjoyed 1t can
not be maintained that the law exacting
cessa tion from labor on Sunday compels ar
act of religious worship. Because divines
may teach their churches that the reveren-
tial observance of the Lords day is an act
of religious worship ii by no means follows
that the prohibition of worldly labor on that
day was designed by the General Assembly
an act of religion. Such an idea can only
be based the SuppositiOn of an entire
ignorance in the Legislature of the nature
of worship which God exacts from his crea-
ture. A compliance with the law induced
by fear of its penalties could never be re-
garded as an act acceptable TO the Deity
No act of worship, unless dictated by heart
felt love, can be pleasing TO the Almighty.
God listens alone TO the voice of the heart
Bearing in mind that our Constitution
was framed for a people whose religion was
Christianity, who had long lived under and
experienced the necessity Of laws to secure
how remarkable would it have been that
they should have agreed to make common
by their fundamental laws, a day conse-
Grated from the very birth of their religion
and hallowed by association dear to every
Christian. Convert Sunday into q worldly
day by law and what becomes of Chris
tianity? How can We reconcile the idea To
our understanding that a people protesting
Christianity would make a fundamental
law by which they would convert Sunday
into worldly day? 1t would have been an
act of deadly hostility to the religion thew
professed, exposing Ii to the danger of be-
ing reduced to the condition in which it
was before the Roman world was governed
nv Christian urinces Though II yo;rrh@