The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-07-30
OF these anusements be q work Of me-

4 OF these amusements be 4 O work OF ne
cessity or no tt let us, 5seeawhat Is meant
by the word necessity 3i.5 5t,. 553s
8"Quotlng again from thu au thorlty above
cited, by. the word necessity as useu
in the Sunday tatutes, Is not meant
physical and dilute necessity, but
moral fitness orr propriety Of the thing
done, under the circumstances OF the par
ticular case. 5yas y, 7, III III
ms. 1t Is not sufficient excuse for orls on
the Lords day that is more convenient
or profitable to do 1t than 1t would be
to defer or omit IT, 5;
#"I call attendtion to the fact that that
definition shows, by the use Of the words
sunday and Lord day, that .S;t It
recognizes the 7Biblical origin8 Of the day,
and therefore, In order to decide what
the statute means by work Of necessity
we must take some account OF the Blble
View rof Sunday, or Lord Isl day work.
And, when the Edible is admitted in evil
5dence, there will be no question as to
whether or not 1.-the opening Of those
nmusements Isl: a. work OF necessity.
Hence I confidently claim that, in the
puryiew of theS statute. the opening Of
those amusements on Sunday is not a
work Of the household. or Of necessity or
of charity. n & (, 10 N ~
5s.s.To show you@ that am not alone IN
this View quote y from an opinion by
Judge Summerville, OF the Supreme Court
OF Alabama The people OF our State
have thus far been 50 law-abiding that,
SO far as I know, our Supreme Court
has never rendered q decision on this
subject. Judge s:SummervlleS says: III
The term necessity as used In such
statutes, means more than physical me-
cesslty. It is universally construed by
the court to Involve also consl derations
OF moral fitness and propriety under the
peculiar circumstances Of the particular
case The design OF the law Is to pre-
serve, to some 4 extent, the sanctltyA Of
the Christian Sabbath, BY discouraglng
Indulgence In certain kinds Of business
of secular nature. Smith vs.. Boston
r., 100 Mass. 400, {, tsc., p Am. Rep. 53s;
sections 44i3-44, The necessity, which
will excuse, If not a physical one, must,
at least be a moral emergency, which
will not reasonably admit Of; delay, but
is SO pressing in Its nature as to rescue
1.-THE act done from the imputation y OF a
-willful dissertation OF q day made sacred
for certain purposes 4 In morals as well
as in law"-Bums VS.. Moon8(76 Ala. S39).
American Reports. vol. 81, page aS22
't1f We are 70 accept, even ~ q meas
ure, the Bible idea Of the sncredness Of
the holy day (and from this definition
and from Judge Sumneryllle 's opinion y
seems that we must), thendI think there
are few people In Richmond who would
agree with Mr. Meredith In saying that
the opening Of the lakewood amusements
on Sunday Is NECESSITY s
&,Mr MeredithS says, 7 am GLAD to state
that one OF the most cons ervatlYe JUDGES
of this Commonwealth I'll shares these
views That conserYati tive judge may
share his views, n bu t his i own brother,
Mr., Charles, ", NIeredl tn. does not seem
to share them: In an opinion g Mayor
Taylor. contained in City Attorneys
Opinions, $685. page n, Mr., g, VI Nero
dith says; E'In the general construction
of the statutes, the courts nave SHOWN
very great unanimity. /. 81 I Us i,
ut can hardly. be supposed mat Mr, -,
/. ". Meredith was Ignorant q the OPINION
! of Judge Sunmeryille,
If such an explicit statement as that
Wy Judge sun,nlerylle had been an ex-
ception Mr., C.. ", Meredith would surely
have mentioned that fact. It seems, there
fore, that Judge summerV1lles opinion
that the design OF the law is to pres
serve, to some extent tho sane lty or inc
Christian Sabbath Is in keeping With the
general construction OF the statutes 3
held by the courts with such very great
unanmlty ,{i 81
"AIr, w. r, Meredith only claims that
It As n necessity from about SiSo +. M,