Evening star., 1908-01-21
WORKING ON THE SABBATH
ACT OF MARYLAND ASSEMBLY
OF 1878 IS INVALID.
Court Of Appeals Afirms Decision OF
Judge Mullowny in the
Police Court.

The Court of Appeals OF the District
of Columbia. in an opinion by Mr.. Jus
tice Van Orsdel. today affirmed the de-
cision of Judge Mullowny of the Police
Court holding invalid in the District the
act OF the Maryland assembly OF l7c3 for
bidding work or any bodily labor on Sun
day. The decision was rendered on a writ
of error sued out by the District OF Co
blmbia from the action of the Poaios
Court in dismissing Charles Robinson.
who was held for driving a dirt cart
through the streets Sunday.
At the trial in the Police Court Attor-
ney E. S. Duvall. jr.. for the defendant.
demurred to the information on the
ground. among others. that the act had
never been enforced In this District. and
by disuse had become obsolete. Judge
Mullowny sustained the demurrer and
dismissed the case.
Justice Van Orsdel In affirming the
action of the trial judge. says: 1--WE think
the consideration of the one ground OF
demurrer above cited will fully dispose OF
the question involved in tiis case. The
state has full authority In exercise OF fts
police power to lesislate for the health,
morals and general welfare OF the people.
and laws prohibiting labor on the Sabbath
have been upheld by the courts. not that
such laws are intended to limit the free
oVhh Va tiC 1lti1OH dS 10 TSESIOuS Uc-
lief. but to prescribe a rule OF civil duty
for an persons within the Jurisdiction OF
the state on the Sabbath day. Congress
undoubtedly has the power to enact laws
to promote good order and protect the
comfort, happiness, and health Of the
people. and has the right to designate
Sunday and prohibit labor thereon"
But as no prosecution had been made
under this law. which had been on the
statute books more than hundred years.
md a Ao0 ho an
the particular kinds OF labor to be pro-
hibited on Sunday. and these prohibitive
acts have been passed without reference
to or amendment OF the Maryland statute.
the court holds that II is proper to re-
gard that statute not only as obsolete.
but as repealed by implication.
Nation Is Christian.
"Our nation and the states composing
it, Justice Van Orsdcl says. "are Chris
tian in policy to the extent OF embracing
and adopting the moral tenets OF Chris
tianity as furnishing a sound basis upon
which the moral obligations Of the citi-
zen to society and the state may be es-
tablished. Recognizing that law can raise
no higher standard of morals for the
government of the individual than society
itself In the aggregate has attained, IL
Is only natural that the legislature should
select al a day for general cessation from
the same Ody titdl ooCiCtJ ~ Soh-
mon consent has observed for centuries.
whether that observance be the result OF
religious belief or otherwise.
TT Will be observed" Justice Van
Orsdel continues. that it Is not the
policy of the law to enforce an OBJ
servance Of the Sabbath day because
of its general observance by the Chris
tian world, but to enforce cessation
from labor on one day In seven. 1t Is
within the power of the legislature to
fix any other day in the week and the
law would be equally as effective for
the purpose OF its enactment. In the
selection OF the Sabbath day the legis-
lature has selected the day society gen.
orally recognizes as a day Of rest, ir-
respective of any legal requirement:
LEGISLATION can no longer be questioned.
1t has been universally upheld by the
courts.
while it is the legitimate prerogative
of the legislature" the court declares, to
impose upon society the civil duty OF OBJ
serving one day in seven as day OF rest,
1t is beyond its power TO impose the OBJ
servance of Sunday as purely religious
duty. In other words, while the legtsla-
ture may very properly prescribe and I'M
pose upon the citizen obligations OF
civil nature, it cannot impose the same
obligations as religious duties. II. thsre-
fore, the act in question was INTENDED 10
enforce the observance Of the Sabbath as
a religious obligation. and not a civil duty.
whatever power the colonial legislative
assembly may have had to prescribe and
enforce such law. we are OF the opinion
that II cannot be legally enforced under
our present constitutional form Of govern
ment."