Sunday Law Failing by Editor

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · May 18, 1882

Sunday Law Failing.

By Editor

THE friends of the Sunday Law in California have had a few crumbs of comfort in convictions under the law; but very few in comparison with the many failures. Most of the trials have resulted in disagreement of the juries or in acquittal. In Los Angeles, the papers inform us, "District Attorney Brown has dismissed 184 complaints under the Sunday Law. The Board of Supervisors declined to appropriate money for the costs."

This not only quells the excitement in that city but largely in that whole section of country, as its influence will be felt extensively.

In Tulare county we were informed by a temperance worker, and he a Methodist preacher too, that the cause of temperance had received great injury by the effort to make it appear that the Sunday Law is a temperance law. Sensible men know that it is not. It is making temperance responsible for an effort to enforce a church festival upon unbelievers. The pretense that it is to prevent the desecration of Sunday is equally flimsy, for the law is partial, unjust, and utterly inadequate to any such purpose, even were the purpose a worthy one.

From Sacramento comes the following, May 9:—

"Another saloon-keeper, Joseph Goddard, was tried for violation of the Sunday Law. The jury was out ten minutes and returned a verdict of not guilty. The prosecuting attorney then said it was useless to try any longer to secure convictions, and dismissed all the other cases, but said he was ready to prosecute any cases which citizens would bring up."

And that, probably, pretty much disposes of the matter in Sacramento. The San Francisco Chronicle of May 12, says: "After two days' work in Police Court No. 2 yesterday but eight jurors were secured to try the case of Frank Mitchell, . . . and proceedings were brought to a standstill by the exhaustion of the venire. After considerable bickering the defense agreed to proceed to trial with the eight secured." After they were sworn in the only prosecuting witness "failed to respond, and after waiting for some minutes, the disgusted Prosecuting Attorney consented to a dismissal of the charge." This case, we believe was not presented by the Protective Association, and the only significance attaching to it is the great difficulty in getting a jury to try any case of this nature.