The Chattanooga news. [volume] (Chattanooga, Tenn.) 1891-1939, 1920-12-14

10y pe.tv. nance OF hccunir ihpor ~
Not a Nuisanes.
The contention OF motion picture
operators was that their houses cannot
he termed a common nuisance, and that
they do not AFFECT adversely the morals
and health OF the community. But
nevertheless the supreme court held
that In Grahams case he was guilty OF
both breaking the provisions OF the
1908 law AMI could be indicted under
the common law for the unnecessary
performance OF secular labor on the
Sabbath.
There is another section OF the 1903
law which Is OF wide interest TO the
community now; that relating TO the
playing of games, This says: ANY per-
son who shall hunt fish, or play at
any game, or be drunk on Sunday"
shall be liable TO the same penalties as
the merchant who sells wares, the arti-
san who works his craft, and so on.
Why at that day II should be more IL
legal to be drunk on Sundays than on
other days OF the week is not revealed,
hut doubtless there was sound reason
for picking out one day OF the week for
sohritty.
Not Applicable to Baseball
In any event, this section OF the
statute was held by the supreme court
IN 1915 also not to be applicable TO the
playing OF Sunday baseball. This de-
cision has appeared to many lawyers
as an attempt on the courts part to
evade the intent of the 1903 law by IA
techniCalty. Ii said, in effect, that
baseball wasn't prohibited because IL
hadn't been invented when the law was
written, and so therefore clearly could
not be included in the phrase ''or play
at any game"
Justice Mckinney OF the Tennessee
supreme court. in delivering the opin-
ion in this case in Nashville, April IL,
1919, said, among other things, that
'it appears that at the time OF the
game of baseball had not been invented
ana was unknown and hence the leg
islature could not possibly have had
such game in mind at the time It
passed the said act. Intention is the
cardinal rule in the construction of
statues
Now what was the legislative intent
in the passage Of this statute? The
statute says: If any merchant, ar
tificer, tradesman, farmer or other per-
son shall be guilty of doing or eXer-
eising any of the common avocations OF
life,' etc Evidently the legislature in
tended to inhibit any one from 'exer-
ctsing any of the common avocations
OF life on sunday and unquestionably
1t referred to, and the legislature had
in mind, the common avocations Of life
engaged in by the people at that time.
The legislature did not undertake TO
numerate them--it was unnecessary, as
they were commonly known and under
stood by the people, but they indicated
what they had in mind by specifically
mentioning merchandising; one who
does artistic work, mechanic or manu-
facturer: trader and a farmer, and
speaking historically this practically
included all of the common avocations
of that day.
Serious Problem.
III you undertake to extend the
statute to the many avocations that
have since come into vogue, and which
the legislature could not have had in
mind, you are confronted with very
serious problem, the result being that
very large number of our industrial
and pleasurable operators are persistent
Violators of the statute. The thousands
of men engaged in operating our. rail
roads, traction companies, taXicahs
publishers of Sunday newspapers. the
boys who vend these papers, bootblacks,
whose avocations as mem
bers of band, play in our city parks
on Sunday afternoon for the entertain
ment of the large number of people who
frequent such places for fresh air and
and even the professional
who sings as an avocation
and who hires himself to one of our
church choirs and sings in church Sum
day after Sunday-all of these are vio-
lators of the statute, and many other
examples could be cited.
$50 that when you undertake to give
this statute a broader meaning than
was intended by its trainers, and than
a strict construction entitled 1t to, you
are making law violators out OF many
of our citizens, and they are innocent
offenders, at that: and, furthermore,
the question as to whether particular
act is a violation OF the statute will
depend largely on the personal views
of the particular jurist making the APP
plication. One might consider 1t vo-
lation, while another would not, and
the result would be that the law would |
not be fixed, uniform and certain"
So from these lines the court reversed |
the lower court, and held that Sunday |
baseball was legal.
Attempt to Change Act.
The attempt at the next session of
the legislature will be made to change |
the Sunday law of 1909 as neither those |
who wish a stricter Sunday or more |
enient one are contented with 1t as it
Is. The lawyers. pastors, churchgoers
and others favoring new Sunday law
wish to haze one which will define |
closely and surely the 1903 phrase. "acts |
IF real necessity excepted" They wish |
to say specifically "baseball'' and mo |
ton pictures" so that no latitudinarian |
of a century old statute |
can allow them to escape from the |
general tenor of the law
On the other hand, the amusement |
interest are no more satisfied at the |
eft-handed permission which allows |
them a precariOus existence in the eyes |
If the law, and doubtless will make an |
effort both to resist the passage Of such |
I Sunday statute as that outlined in the |
paragraph, and Will attempt |
to, gain a revision Of the 1903 statute |
enough to allow such amuSements as |
are to the best interests of the mass |
If the people.