The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1902-04-24

to maintain justice and promote
the public welfare.
Unless, then, we keep constantly
in mind that the act 1921 rests
upon public policy alone, we will
be in great danger of giving it
wrong construction; and instead
of reading it in the light of the
constitution, which prohibits all
religious tests and preferences, find
ourselves led away from it's mean
ing by the influence of our own
peculiar theological tenets.
The difficulty Of determining
whether, in any particular case of
labor, the work was one of necess-
ity or not, within the meaning of
the statute, is not usually very
great. This is owing to the fact
that the requirements of the law
are generally observed; or possibly
to the fact that judicial action is
seldom involved except when it's
provisions have been palpably vio-
lated.
BUTT is task of much difficulty,
and one that a court ought not un-
necessarily to attempt to draw a
line that shall clearly distinguish
works of necessity from those that
are not.
1t is easy to say, that to feed the
hungry, to attend the sick, and to
rescue fellow being from suffering
or danger, are works of both ne
cessity and charity; but it would
not do to say that none others are.
For the personal wants of safety of
the human species does not mark
the limit. 1t is work of necess-
ity and charity to take care of and
preserve dumb brute, as we'll as
a human being; and no one would
immagine that the statute is vio-
lated by feeding ones cattle, or
drawing ones sheep from pit, on
the Sabbath day.
But it is very clear that we have
not yet reached the limit, and that
it will not do to hold that nothing
is work of necessity that is not
performed in the care or for the
preservation of animal life. The
care of preservation of property,
though inanimate, may be work
of necessity If house should
take fire on the Sabbath, it would
obviously be lawful to save it by
labor. 1t would be equally so to save
crop from the effects of bad
weather, when to omit doing so
would result in its loss or
material injury-or, for a mer-
chant to save his goods; a manu-
facturer or mechanic 5731 his
wares; seaman his vessel; or, in
a word, any man his property in
danger of destruction or injury, on
the Sabbath day.
+ Nor will it do to limit the word
necessity" to those cases of dan
ger to life, health or property
r which are beyond human foresight
or control. On the contrary, the
necessity may grow out of, or in
2 deed be incident to, particular
trade of calling, and yet be case
of necessity within the meaning of
. the act. For it is no part of the
design of the act to destroy, or i'm
pose onerous restrictions upon any
lawful trade or business; and
hence, under a similar statute, it
has been held In sister state, that
it is lawful to keep a blast furnace
at work on Sunday, because it is
work OF necessity. So, too, it has
been held that, under special cir
cumstances, a mill may grind on
that day; and l think it will hard
| ly be questioned, that a gas COM
pany may supply gas; a water
company, water; and o. dairY-
man, D1iJ6, to their respective
customers, on that day.
Other illustrations might be Civ
en-, but these are quite sufficient to
show, that the necessi ty spoken of
in the statute, is not an absolute,
uncomfortable necessity only; but
may be necessity created by the
exigencies of society or trade. If
nothing but absolute necessity was
intended, it would, in general, be
unlawful to prepare a meal on the
Sabbath; because it might without
difficulty be previously prepared,
or because most people might safe
\