Arizona republican., 1917-03-25
Where the People
 May Have Hearing
Meaning of the Proposed Sunday Rest
 Ordinance

OTOindnCe To the Editor of The Republican, Sir:
 It is coming to be pretty well known that the churches of Phoenix are circulating petitions asking the citizens to vote a Sunday rest ordin- ance for the city. The petition being signed is very drastic, and should such a petition be formulated into an ordinance. would have far reaching result now little anticipated by its promoters.
 It is quite safe to affirm that the law called for in the petition would be against both the congressional enabling act permitting the recep- tion of the state of Arizona into the great family of states, and the adopt ed constitution of the state itself. Said petition sets forth An ordin- ance to provide for the orderly, moral and decorOus observance ot the day ralled Sunday, and to provide pun ishment for violations thereof"
 Just what is meant by a decorous observance of the day called Sunday, to the common use of the word decorum. of which decorous is a close relative. Decorous means, ac- cording to an office dictionary at hand. ''propriety and decency of words. dress and conduct" Ac- cording to this definition, the prop osition is to regulate after a fashion, the words and dress as well as the conduct of all citizens. But why is ari ordinance of this kind necessary except to demand all to show re- ligious respect for the day that the church reveres?
 And yet some callings and trades are not to be required to conform to this requirement.; for the proposed ordinance carries on it's face eY- emotions for certain parties. For instance, the delivery of ice and milk, the printing of papers and the sale Of them on the streets, restaurant labor, transportation of persons or baggage. ary or all of which callings would not be engaged in, except for the profits accruing from sDch en- gaGcments.
 This is-a discrimination not war ranted by the United States consti- tuition. or the constitution of Arizona. The United States constitution in Article IA. Sec. l, declares that nc state shall make or enforce any law which shall aoridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life. liberty, or prop erty without cue process of law, nor l deny to any person within it's iurs- | diction the equal protection of the 1 laws"
 But this proposed ordinance does | not provide every person "equal pro- l tection''; for it designs to exempt l/some callings from penalty when pursued on Sunday, while penalizing others for carrying on their callings. l This seems to be in direct violation l of Article 1, Section 13. of the Ari- zona declaration of rights, which | says:
 1 No law shall be enacted granting to any citizen. class of citizens or cor Doration other than municipal. priv ileges or immunities which, upon the same terms. shall not equally belong l to all citizens or corporations" It is useless to say that the ex- | empted calllngS are necessities for the public good, when these necessi- | ties would not be provided except their operatives De well paid for their time and labor. Why then should | others who are poor, be underpaid | for daily services, be Denalized tC the amount of one days pay each Week. when others are permitted tC pursue their callings seven days eacf week.
 All these callings forbidden as Sunday work, are honorable on al
 
 offensive on Sunday? Manifestly il is not because the performance ot the callings of themselves has become criminal. but it is the day itself that Is desired to be made sacred Tn, day on which an art is made crimina has nothinr to do with its lega status. It is inst as wrong to stea or strike g man on one day as an other in the estimation of law to Srlt1 day.
 It is therefore clear that the pres ent effort is to have Sunday religi- ouslv recognized by all citizens whether they want to do so or not and all because the churches so de cree it.
 In view of this let us read tho congressional act which enabled Ari 2ona to be recognized as an American state.
 < Section 20 of that act says: "Sait convention shall provide, by an ordin- ance irrevocable, without the consen of the United States, and tlIe people of the state
 | First, That perfect toleration O religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested in person ol property on account of his of hel mode of religious worship
 In the declaration of rights pro- claimed by the state of Arizona, we have this:
 Article 1. Sec g. "The constitu tion of the United States is the su- preme law of the land"
 But Article l of the United States constitution declares that congress shall make no law respecting the es- ta blishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
 Arizona declaration of rights is not behind Tn this respect; for in Article 20 we have: First, perfect tolera- tion of religious sentiment shall be secured to every inhabitant of this state. and no inhabitant of this state shall be molested in person or prop erty on account of his or her mode of religious worship, or lack of the same'
 But this proposed ordinance in- tends to penalize those who do not | conform to it's prescribed regla- tions of religious decorum, and will beget a system of spying upon each others movements. that will destroy | the peace of neighborhoods where differences of religious opinion pre- vails. It is better to let we'll enough alone, and not stir up religious strife that will certainly curse the good inv @f nf