Putnam patriot., 1908-07-24
Practical Victor, for the Civic League.

Civic League to have The stale law en- forced, forbidding any secular business or labor to be transacted on Sunday ex- crpi works of necessity or mercy, hss been finally decided jadicially in their favor. Prosecuting Attorney Card had refused to prosecute an offender after evidence WAS furnished him showing that the State law had been violated, on the ground il was not his duty. He readily agreed, however. that if the courts decided that 1t was obligatory upon him as the Prosecuting Attorney of the city to enfore the law, he should do so impartially, and close up every kind of bushes carried on during sun day.
 The Civic League thereupon. through State Attorney Searts. applied To udge Rorabaek, of the Superior Court, for a writ of mandamus 10 compel Prosecut- ing Attorney Card to prosecute the sio- lator. Judge Rorabaek rendered his decision Thursday afternoon. He finds that the offenders act was clear vio- lalion of law and that the Prosecuting Attorneys refusal to acl in the case was neglect of plain duty.
 The fact that the Court refused to grant the writ of mandamns on a tech nieality. has no bearing on the matter whatever. The Civic League had no de a; -. ,, ,,,,,sh th. prasaa.,t{Ysr \ ft...a,, for his refusal to prosecute the offender, but to demonstrate that those who did secular business on Sunday were viola ting the Stale law and could be eom- pelled to desist, and punished if they refused. In this they have clearly sue ceeded. It now remains for Prosecut- ing Attorney Card to proceed against every violator of the law, who persists in doing secular business on Sunday, no matter of what character, with the exception of necessity and mercy.
 This matter of enforcing the Sunday law is being agitated in other parts of the State, and every decision is of in- terest to the entire State. For that req son We herewith give Judge Roraback 's decision in full.
 Section ls69 of the General Statutes reads as follows: Every person who shall do any secular business or labor, except works of necessity or mercy, or keep open any shop, warehouse, CT any manufacturing CT mechanical eStah- lishment, or expose my property for sale, ar engage in any sport between t2 o'clock Saturday night and i2 o'clock sunday night, shall be lined mol me fe than s5o.
 Justice Field Whes4. iaesier of the supreme court of California in speak. ing Of the observance of our Sunday law well said that Ills requirement k cessation of labor. In itS enactment the legislature has given the sanction of law to q rule of conduct which the entire civilized world recognizes as es- sentiai 10 the physical and moral well being Of society. pom no subject k there such concurrence of opinion among philosophers, morallsts and statesmen of all nations, as on the ne ssity of periodical eessations from la Dor. One day in seven is the rule, founded on experience and sustained by science. The prohibition of secular business on sunday k advocated on the ground that by ii the general wei fare is advanced, labor protected and ihe moral and physical wellbeing of society promoted.
 IL Is admitted by the respondent in this ease that on sunday, May 10, 1908, one GeorgePetersoa kept open his store and place of business, and therein ex- posed for sale and did sell soda water confectionery and ice cream
 II k also conceded that the fespon- dent, with full knowledge and infof. maiion Of these facts, refused to make preseniment and complaint for the al- legged violations of our statute law.
 Ii k claimed in behalf of Prosecuting Attorney Card that the acts of Mir. pe- terson complained Of could be justified as a work of necessity, and that after investigation, the respondent was of the opinion that the said Peterson had committed no crime or misdemeanor. So that II appears in the case now un- der consideration the prosecuting at torney declined to act, not because there is any controversy as to the facis, but solely because ii is his opinion, as a matter of law that no crime or misde- UItdfIOI HAS DStif tpilbtittcu-
 Our supreme court in the recent case of state against Ryan made the follow ing observation in relation to the viola ton of our Sunday law '.The ques- ton remains whether the act of the de- fendant was the doing of any secular business or labor within the meaning of section 1889. The verdict established the fact that he had done secular busi- ness or labor on Sunday which actual ly disturbed the public peace and qui- ct or annoyed, interrupted, or disturb ed citizen in his proper observance of the day. This, without question, was ample to show violation of the stat ute.
 The ofiense of MT. Peterson com plained of was a clear violation Of our law relating to the observance Of the Sabbath day, and the prosecuting at torney, in refusing 10 act, neglected 10 perform his plain duty.
 It is the duty of every informing offi- cer to see that false and frivolous char ges are not preferred, and that criminal process is not resorted 10 for personal or private ends, but if Is equally his duty to see that the plain violations of the law of the state -houldibe fearless. iy investigated. and the theory that prosecuting officeis of this state have the absolute power to determine who shall, or shall not. be prosecuted, l. hardly supported by tine law.
 N bile ihe writ of mandamus will not ordinarily be granted t0 eoniroi discretion, yet in q ease % clear and specific a. tIre one presented against Ais Peterson. it would Saetn that shEfr ~as no element af discretion Eeft in the performance of his duty apou the part of inc prosecuting attorney, and thAt is refusing to pf8seeaL1. sir Gard was wholly anjnstiisefi.
 The alleged violation 4 she law np-