p. 20 | Victory for Religious Liberty in Newfoundland

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Mar 14, 1912

Victory for Religious Liberty in Newfoundland

By C. H. Keslake

Some time ago two of our brethren in Englee were fined, with the alternative of imprisonment, for working on Sunday. An appeal was taken to the supreme court of Newfoundland to test not the validity of the act, for which there is no provision whatever in British jurisprudence (Newfoundland is a British colony), but the legality of the conviction under the act of Charles the Second (1677). The appeal was heard before the full court on January 8, last. Our counsel argued that the act in question did not apply to this colony; that the actions of the appellants were not a breach of the act, inasmuch as the appellants could not be said to be tradesmen or artificers within the meaning of the act; and that the appellants’ acts were justifiable, coming within the exemptions made and provided.

The supreme court have handed down their decision, which was wholly unanimous, quashing the conviction. This sets our brethren at liberty, and settles for the time being the question of Sunday labor as far as the fishermen are concerned.

We are sorry that the judges could not decide that the act in question does not apply to this country, as then there would have been no general Sunday law in force here. We were, however, not sanguine at the time the matter was argued that the judges would take that view of the matter, notwithstanding the able manner in which our lawyer presented that phase of it. But even if the judges had taken a view altogether at variance with our position in the premises, our brethren would have been acquitted, as the court really quashed the conviction on the ground that the magistrate did not try the case within the prescribed limit (ten days) from the time the complaint was made against the defendants. The court, however, gave their opinion in extenso in regard to the second point argued by our counsel, and did so, as was stated in the decision, “in order to avoid further litigation,” holding that a fisherman is not a tradesman or an artificer within the meaning of the act.

As the fishing industry is the principal one in this country, the decision is quite far-reaching, and for the time being puts a quietus upon the operations of the Lord’s Day Alliance. While we rejoice in the victory, and praise the Lord for it, we can not tell how long we shall be permitted to enjoy it. Even now a petition is being circulated in one electoral district in which parliament, now in session, is to be asked to enact a law forbidding Sunday labor at the seal fishery and the landing of freight and mails in the outports on Sundays. Such a law, if enacted, would not be likely to affect our brethren particularly. But we realize that it would serve as a precedent for more drastic measures in the future. We shall do what we can to point out to the legislators the principles and dangers involved, with the view of defeating any proposed religious legislation. But we are aware that there are strong influences at work in favor of such measures. Nevertheless, we are grateful for the respite that this late decision will afford us, especially our brethren at Englee, inasmuch as it would mean a considerable loss to them not to be permitted “to haul their traps” on Sunday.

C. H. KESLAKE.