Court Opinion

ID: 9864852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:14:22.538871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:15.660717
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Bakke, dissenting.
I am not in accord with the court’s opinion, because it has the effect of invalidating an ordinance which has been in effect in Colorado Springs, a home rule city, for a quarter of a century, and places its stamp of approval *504on the sale of all lands of merchandise on Sunday by so-called drug stores.
Sunday closing legislation, as such, is clearly valid, unless otherwise discriminatory. 60 C. J. 1030. No extended discussion of the discrimination here involved is necessary. The controlling principles have been stated and reiterated many times by this court, and a sufficient statement of them is found in the recent case of In re Interrogatories, etc., 97 Colo. 587, 52 P. (2d) 663, wherein we upheld the so-called restaurant law. The sale of groceries may be prohibited on Sunday, except in case of necessity. McAfee v. Commonwealth, 173 Ky. 83, 190 S. W. 671, L. R. A. 1917C, 381; State v. Hogan, 212 Mo. App. 473, 252 S, W. 90.
Defendant urges, as recited in the stipulation, that the drug stores in Colorado Springs are selling groceries every day without interference. That may be a legitimate complaint, but no one is here urging that the ordinance does not govern that situation. After all, the test of a law is not what is done despite its provisions, but what it provides.
Was it necessary for the defendant to sell the merchandise involved within the meaning of the exception of the ordinance, ‘ ‘ except when required by necessity. ’ ’ Again I say no. The stipulation of facts recites simply that defendant sold certain staple groceries in the ordinary course of trade on Sunday. Defendant urges that groceries are necessary, hence a necessity exists whenever anybody wants to buy them, and that, therefore, they can be sold at any time. That is a specious argument. The language of the ordinance may not be construed in so strained a fashion. Necessity, as used here, requires a circumstance in the nature of an emergency. Something definitely not “in the usual course of his business.” The degree or extent to which it must be without the usual course of trade, we do not here attempt to ■ decide. That is a question of fact to be determined in *505each case. There certainly was no such necessity shown here.
Defendant, in his reply brief, calls onr attention to the recent case of Deese v. City of Lodi (Cal.), 69 P. (2d) 1005, decided in July, 1937, in which a somewhat similar ordinance was voided by the District Court of Appeals of California, which is persuasive but not conclusive.
The California court used this language: “The Lodi ordinance has neither moráis, Christian observance of Sunday, public health, welfare, or safety to support it.” That language is not applicable here. The California ordinance was clearly discriminatory. Under the guise of an exercise of the police power to protect orderliness and public health and cleanliness, it closed grocery stores, but expressly permitted dance halls, pool halls, and liquor stores to operate, and sporting contests to be held. Its express provisions were thus contrary to its declared purpose. The ordinance before us, being reasonable in its classification, is as clearly not discriminatory. It purports to exempt transactions “required by necessity,” and the necessity of its specific exemptions are well within legislative discretion. If it permitted the sale of articles by one class of merchants and prohibited such sales under the same circumstances by another class, a different question would be presented. No such facts appear from the record.
The two Denver cases thought by the court to be controlling, Denver v. Bach, 26 Colo. 530, 58 Pae. 1089, and Mergen v. City and County of Denver, 46 Colo. 385, 104 Pac. 399, are not authority for the conclusions reached. There certainly is a distinction in law between ordinances which positively forbid certain things to be done, and those which only forbid except in cases of necessity. The court should recognize that distinction.
Finally, the Ohio case—Olds v. Klotz, 131 O. St. 447, 3 N. E. (2d) 371—should not be considered as authority here. The ordinance there involved sought to regulate closing hours of grocery stores on week days, as well *506as on Sundays, and a mere glance at the opinion will indicate that the force of it is directed against the attempted regulation of hours during the week. The question of Sunday closing is not discussed.
It is the duty of courts to interpret the law as it is, not how it is being administered, or how they wish it to be. If the ordinances of Colorado Springs are “not in tune” with the times, that is a concern of the legislative body of that city, not ours.
Mr. Justice Hilliard concurs in this opinion.