The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-07-15
A BASEBALL ARGUMENT
CLAIMED THE SUNDAY LAW Is NOT
SUFFICIENTLY DEFINITE.
Judge McCray VIII Give a Decision
ON the Police Court Appeal
Tomorrow.


McCray heard argument in the baseball lti-
cation which comes up on an appeal from
the Police Court, where the members of the
Indianapolis and Kansas City clubs were
fined for attempting to play ball on Sun
day. Frank B. Burke and Joseph B. Keal-
ing spoke for the defendants. Charles S.
Wiltsie represented the State. J. B. Healing
in attacking the law making it unlawful to
play ball on Sunday. contended that the law
Is uncertain and ambiguous and cannot
stand. He quoted the statute as follows:
1T shall be unlawful for any person or per-
sons to engage in playing any game Of base
balm where any fee is charged on the first
day Of the week, commonly called Sunday,
ETC." Mr.. Healing pointed out thai the
affidavit charges that the defendants
played game of baseball where an admit
tance fee of twenty-five cents was charged
each of the spectators present.
Concerning this, the attorney said: "In
criminal law it is settled rule that all
statutes must be strictly construed by the
courts. 1t is also well settled that we must
look to the words and language of the stat
ute for the intention of the Legislature and
the common, ordinary meaning must be
given to all language used. Examining this
statute, then, in the light of these rules, can
words, what the Legislature meant when it
said where fee is charged Does 1t say
anything of fee being charged spectators?
Does 1t mean where fee is charged the
players by the person on whose ground they
are playing, or that the spectators are
charged a fee? The State in the affidavit
supplies the word 'admittance' before the
word fee and adds that said admittance fee
Of twenty-five cents was charged the spec
tators.' The words admittance and specta-
tors are not used any where in the statute
Leaving out these words not in the statute
and framing the affidavit in the language of
the statute, how can the court conStrue the
statute as meaning that the fee is to be
charged spectators when spectators are no
where mentioned. If the Legislature means
to make it a violation Of the law for play
ers to pay fee to play or If the Legislature
meant 1t to be a violation of the law to
play in place where spectators are charged
fee, it should have said So Not having
done this, 1t leaves the statute so uncertain
and ambiguous that the defendant does not
know and cannot know from the language
what 1t meant"
States Attorney Wiltsie commended that
statute cannot be set aside simply because
the wording is not direct The statute must
be looked into by the court and examined.
The court must put himself in the place of
the legislators and find out what they meant
when they passed the law. Mr.. Wiltsie said
the State had advised the ballplayers of just
what they were charged with. He commended
that they understood clearly enough what
the statute meant. The prosecutor held that
it makes no difference who received the fee
in the case, the word has definite mean
fR4rN t.
charged. The prosecutor read from a deci-
sion of the Nebraska Supreme Court in the
States favor, showing that the law Of Ne
braska on this question is almost identical
with that of this State.
Frank b. Burke along this line said: II
regret the statement of the prosecutor that
he indorseS the sentence Of the court of Ne
braska (holding that all free government
rests upon divine law. regret it because
l believe he is as much an American as
am He looks for the advancement of his
country as much as / do and l regret to
near him laying down the mOnStrouS propO-
sitlon that our system of government rests
upon divine law, and not upon the principle
Of natural Justice Divine law! The mon
arches OF Europe were formerly, If they are
not now, administered upon the principle
that the people were utterly destitute of all
rights and entirely at the mercy of the gov
ernment In the seventeenth century the
principle was not only acted upon but was
maintained as the will of God. Upon that
were founded. upon the declaration that
kings govern by divine right, that they are
the annointed of the Lord, and being the
Amounted of the Lord, they can do no
wrong. Christianity existed for seventeen
hundred years before that time and still we
had no free governments.
Men with minds lberalized and enlight-
ened by the perusal of ancient learning, and
with hearts warned by the contemplation of
ancient freedom, entered upon the study of
the rights of man and arrived at the con-
clusion that he was possessed of certain
natural rights. This conviction came with
the colonists to America and was here per-
petuated. The discussion extended to France
and produced a revolution. All this for the
inalienable rights of man; and there is moth
ing defining morality now within the power
of the government, and even should such
definition be attempted there is no power
by which it could be forced upon the pub
lie mind. 1t is because we have the right
to resist legislative oppression that I ask
the court to strike down this law"
Judge McCray will give a decision In the
case Saturday.