The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1922-04-07

,.'G!ue laws" and therefore antiquated.
-! may state by way of parenthes:<
that none CT these laws Gnown a>
blue laws" have ever been N opera
ton in this state. TGey are confined
! to some Of The New England states,
where women have been burned at
the stake as witches and for i pre-
tense. make long prayers. Happily
70. US. however. our covrt has nevc!
REGARDED the law for the observance
/ Of the Sabbath as obsolete and even
in recent times the law has been held
10 be in full force and effect.
To avoid extending this communl-
cation at 100 great length. | will Quo-e
sut q few of our recent decisions.
In the case Of the city Of Charles
ton vs.. Benjamin, who was charged
With violating an ordinance Of the
city foYbidding work on the Sabbath
day. his plea was that such an ord'-
nance was in violation Of the consu-
tuition OF the state insuring religious
liberty. In that case Judge O'Neall,
delivering the opinion of the court,
saws: q agree fully to what IS beau
tifuIly and appropriately said IN Up
Aegraph VS.. the commonwealth I'll
Sergt. E. Maule 394). Christianity,
general Christianity, is, and always
has been a part of the common law;
nct Christianity founded on an! par
t;cular religious tenets, not Christian
itv with ar established church and
tithes and spiritual courts, Tut Chris
sianity with liberty Of conscience to
al! men.
"But l have said all which need be
said on this interesting subject. 1t
was not necessary for the decision Of
this case: it has only been sad to
prevent silence from being interpret
ed into a want of confidence in the
proposition, that Christiaity may be
Justly appealed to as a part OF our
common law"
But to meet the objection which
NAV be raised by some that these
laws are now obsolete, let US appeal
to our more recent decisions. l quote
from the case of Cain VS.. DAILY, "A S.
c.. page ass. Chief Justice Jones
delivering the opinion of the court,
saws: ''Ir is not even claimed in this
case that the statute in question IS
old on constitutional grounds, but 1t
is alleged to oe obsolete, that IS, re-
pealed by non-user. Courts should
hesitate long to declare an act on our
statute books obsolete from desue-
tude. O'Handon vA Myers, 10 Rlch.'
130.
"The better view IS that statute
is in force until repealed by the prop
er authority, either expressly OF by
clear implication, as, for example, by
the enactment of inconsistent leglsia-
ton. In this case, however. there Is
no foundation whatever to claim that
the statute is obsolete. The statute IS
substantially in the words OF the en-
actnent of 20 Charles II in 1913; was
first enacted here in 1891, 2 Stat, oo;
reenacted in 1712, 2 Stat, 1856, en-
bodied in the Revised Statutes OF
1873 as Section 2, Chapter "A, page
$50, appears as Section 1882 IN the
General Statutes of 1882, and as Sec
ton 326 Of Revised Statutes Of 1893,
and finally as Section sol Of the GRIM
inal code Of 1902. This shows the
attitude of the lawmaking branch OF
the government towards the statute,
and in the absence of inconsistent
LEGISLATION, conclusively rebuts any
suggestion of repeal by implication.
Indeed, it would be difficult to men
ton any law more generally approved
and obeyed, or more applicable to
these strenuous times, than the one
under consideration. The constltu-
t,cnalitv Of Sunday law like this is
so generally recognized that there Is
no need to cite authorities in support
n