Sunday Law Unconstitutional.
THERE has been placed in our hands the Brief of J. R. Brandon, filed by permission of the Supreme Court of California, as to the Constitutionality of the Sunday Law. The following exposure of the flimsy pretense of a sanitary or police regulation is unanswerable. The facts are clear, and within the reach of the understanding of every person:-- “But it is only for the sake of argument that I have admitted that the law, the constitutionality of which is disputed, is a law merely defining a general day of rest as a sanitary measure, or a police regulation. It is not such a law, but on the contrary it is a law prescribing religious duty. It is a law DECLARING AN ACT TO BE AN OFFENSE AGAINST RELIGION, and punishing it as such. “The title of the chapter in which the Sections in question occur, (see Title 9, chapter 7, Penal Code,) is as follows:-- “‘Of Crimes against religion and conscience, and other offenses against good morals.’ “And then follows Sec. 299, which says that certain acts done on the Christian Sabbath constitute a misdemeanor. “Then we have Sec. 300 under which the conviction in the case at bar was had, which provides that whoever keeps open any store, etc., for business on Sunday shall be fined, etc. “Sec. 301. Excepts certain privileged classes. “We have not a word here of setting apart a day of rest, not a hint of sanitary regulation, but we have the broad, clear, definite announcement that the Legislature decrees the doing of an act perfectly legitimate in itself, perfectly lawful and praiseworthy on any other day, to be an offense against religion if committed on the Christian Sabbath or Sunday. “The heading of the chapter which is part and parcel of the Act, and evidences the intent of the Legislature, (Barnes vs. Jones, 51 Cal. 303), clearly shows that such intent was to enforce the observance of the Christian Sabbath or Sunday on all classes, as religion. The intent could hardly be plainer if the law read, ‘The opening of any store or place of business on the Christian Sabbath is an offense against religion, and shall be punished as follows.’ “It can not be said that it is intended to make it an offense against good morals, because it is no act of immorality on the part of the Israelite or Seventh-day Christian to open his store on the Christian Sabbath. It is, however, deemed an offense against religion for a Christian to do so, and therefore when the Legislature speaks of such acts which are immoral in themselves, in the same chapter thus headed, it can only intend to say that those which are recognized by some as acts against religion, shall be so deemed by the State and punished as such. “This certainly seems the only legitimate construction that can be put on the law.” Another extract from this argument will be given next week. Such evident facts presented to the public may have the effect to temporarily check the progress of religious fanaticism, but the check will only be temporary. The popular current sets in the direction of a complete union of church and State, and we look for nothing short of this.