The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1910-08-05
have been in the enforcement of the
Shows Must Be Moral.


law.
Shows Must Be Moral.
In his decision, handed down yester
day. and published in last evenings
Free Press, Jusice Lewis says:
III has never been the legislative
policy in this state to strictly enforce
the cessation of all kinds of work and
amusements on the Sabbath day. The
leading principle all through the lead
ing enactments upon the subject is to
prevent any serious interruption of the
repose of religious liberty of the COM
munity. This means it has not been
the intention to interfere with the free
dom of the public III the pursuit of
amusement and relaxation on the Sab
bath day when it does not seriously
interfere with the rights of other mem
bers of the community who desire a
quiet and uninterrupted observance of
the day.
But it should be understood that
our decision is based on the evidence
in this particular case and it should
not be understood that moving picture
shows and similar entertainments may
not be abated under other provisions
of the law when unwholesome in char
acter or improperly conducted
Opinion Of Dissenters.
Justice Brown and Justice O'Brien
dissented to the opinion. The former
handed down his opinion rs follows:
Il dissent. The decision in this case
opens the door to all Sunday theatres,
on condition that their exhibitions and
performances be of Il moral nature
and orderly conducted. The statutes
do not so read. They contain no such
reservation, but. OH the contrary. eX-
pressly prohibit on the Sabbath day,
without qualification, all public shows
and exhibitions, regardless of their
character or the manner in which they
are conducted. Authorities cited from
New York are not in point. In that
subject; one applying to outdoor
sports, shows and exhibitions, and the
ether to indoor theatrical performances
of certain charcter. which are eX-
preSsly enumerated III the statute. A
moving picture show is not among
the enumerated indoor shows, and the
courts of that state have held, and
properly so. that the statutes pro-
hibiting outdoor shows do not apply
to show or exhibition of that kind.
- hot
statute prohibiting moving picture
show.
Refers to the Statute.
In this state we have but one stat
ute on the subject, which, in my iudg
ment, properly construed, applies both
to indoor an doutdoor shows. 1t is
absurd to impute to the legislature Il
solemn purpose to prohibit Sunday
outdoor exercises, and to protect and
sanction the cheap indoor shows which
are always, whatever their character
or tone. demoralizing to the youth
who attend them. The conclusion
reached by the court in this case
seems severe strain upon the rules
Of statutory construction. 49,
The Bjelland Case.
Following is the syllabus in the case
of DR.. A. Q. Bjelland VS. the City of
Mankato:
A. o. Bielland, appellant, VS.. The
City OF Mankato, respondent.
Action to recover for medical services
rendered by the plaintiff, who was the
health officer of the defendant city at
a fixed salary, in controlling and eradi-
eating an epidemic of smallpox and
typhoid fever i'll the city, pursuant
to contract with the city board
of health of which he was member
that he should render such services and
be paid the reasonable value thereof
Held, following Stone vs.. Bevans, IS
Mimi. III, and distinguishing Chair
man of Board of Health VS.. Renville
county. 90 Mimi. 402 that the contract
was void. Order affirmed. Opinion by
Chief Justice Start.
Dir. Bjelland brought an action
against the city to recover 81 500 fol
services rendered the municipality dur.
ing the typhoid fever epidemic. During
that epidemic DR.. Bielland acted as
/ health officer. The doctor contended
! that the charter did not contemplate
/ that lie should perform extra services
for the small salary paid the health
officer.
Demurrer Was Introduced
n,. nd ho
of the city when he performed the
services. He was president of tne
board of health and claimed that the
! board agreed to pay him for the ser
vices over and above his salary. The
council disallowed the claim on tht
ground that it was illegal, and whel
the doctor sued the city, the city at
I torney. j. w. Schmitt, demurred to the
complaint, Judge Pau sustained the
demurrer and the case was appealed t,
the supreme court by the plaintiff
J The supreme court holds that the az
legged agreement was void and that the
doctors claim was illegal, and that
he cannot recover.
Sunday Performances Later.
Il DIV. Chamberlain states that ther,
will he no Sunday performance at thu
Unique theatre tomorrow or week
I from tomorrow The mandate of til,
supreme court must come back aff(