The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1910-01-27

II ySN&N M A. fsyN &SS4v
me rsfsrsnasdi1sM NAsinv6kedupon
the measure and st the election OF
1905 itzwas approved by s majority
of some 400 votes for the entire
state.
Recently It was determined by one
of the Sioux Falls theaters to ignore
the law against Sunday performances
and they have been openly given. An
arrestsWas made and the case went
before = jury. The attorney for the
theater contended that the law vas
unconstitutional, but this Of purse
was not the ground on which he
hoped to win the Juries : not
empowered to find q Law in viola
tion OF the state constitution. All
such questions are passed upon by
the courts themselves. Further, Sum
day theater laws are in force in a
number Of states and the courts gen.
orally. we believe, have held that it
is within the power of state legis-
latures to enact them. There was no
denial of the ofense at Sioux Falls.
The question for the jury was wheth-
err or not there should be punishment
and the jury decided there should
not.
1t is a reflection upon the courts
that such a verdict is allowed to
stand. There was no question of
fact for this jury to determine. What
lin reality it "a asked to say was
whether or not the laws of the state
should be flounted by the very insti-
tuition that is supposed to see that
they are enforced.
II is not a question now whether
or not there should be a state Law
against Sunday performances by the
itheaters. That was a proper subject
for debate when the measure was be-
ing considered by the legislature and
afterward when 1t was before the
/, people themselves. The indisputable
fact is that 1t is THE LAW of the
state of South Dakota that theaters
, shall not open their doors on the
Sabbath. Therefore the question now
lis wholly whether a law should be
treated as a law or as a joke. The
Sioux Falls jurors who deliberately
refused to recognize the law and the
people Of Sioux Falls who are giving
them moral support now, are as tru-
Nv anarchists as any man who ever
threw a bomb.
It will not do to say that this law
should not be respected because the
majority IN popular vote for 1t was
! only about 400. Are we to say that
it is not Sufficient to have a majority
In favor Of q legislative enactment?
as the minimum? Shall It be made
1000 votes, or ought It to be 1000?
II this is the principle on which Sioux
Falls is proceeding. the people Of
that city ought first to change the
constitution Of the state so that %
majority vote will no longer suffice.
TO create laws.
II all avs r not to be recogniz-
ed then who Is to say what shall be
and what shall not be? Do the peo-
pie OF South Dakota want to dele
gate to Sioux Falls the rights to de-
clare void any measure that Is not
satisfactory to Sioux Falls? Is It to
be hereafter the state of. Sioux Falls?
We hear a great deal today about
contempt OF law. It is said at times
that the most important reform of
all is to secure the uniform enforce
ment Of law. In the abstract Sioux
Falls no doubt subscribes to this
view. But it is just such perform
49, MZ RI
ances as that by Sioux Falls in re-
jscting laws that it doesn't fancy that
enable men in all stations to commit
crimes and go unpublished. If Sioux
Falls doesn't like the Sunday theater
Law, let her begin a campaign for its
repeal.
THE MITCHELL WHOLESALE
GROCERY.
A wholesale grocery house is a
natural institution for Mitchell. That
is why the people Of Mitchell should
attach q great deal of significance to