A Decision in Favor of Justice by H. F. KETRING.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Oct 28, 1909

A Decision in Favor of Justice

By H. F. KETRING.

It is very gratifying indeed, in these times when religious oppression seems to be gaining ground, to see a supreme court take a stand in favor of the rights of the people. This was the stand taken on October 4, by the supreme court of Colorado, in the case of L. E. Mergen, a grocer. The case was first started by the Denver Retail Grocers’ Association in an effort to force all non-union grocers to close their doors on Sunday. There are about five hundred of these smaller grocers in the city, and they maintained through their attorney that class legislation was being enforced upon them, and that they were being deprived of their rights as citizens contrary to the Constitution of the United States.

In the Denver County court the defendant was found guilty of violating the ordinance providing that no grocery or meat shop could sell food on the sabbath. Upon appeal to the supreme court this decision was reversed, and the Sunday closing ordinance declared to be unconstitutional. The opinion was written by Justice Musser, all the other justices concurring. He said:—

“It does not appear that section 1256, the municipal code, as framed, will promote the peace, welfare, health, or other ends for the promotion of which the police power of the city may be exercised. Upon the authority of Denver vs. Bach, and for reasons there given, the section of the municipal code under which the plaintiff in error was convicted, is invalid. The judgment will, therefore, be reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to dismiss the complaint.”

In the case of Denver vs. Bach referred to, the court declared that: “ ‘Sunday ordinances,’ as they are termed, have been upheld upon the theory that it is necessary for the good order, good government, and general welfare of the inhabitants of a city, that their usual and ordinary vocations (except those of necessity or charity) should be suspended upon that day. The business of selling clothing is not unlawful; it does not in any manner interfere with morality, or tend to create disorder. . . . If the ordinance can be upheld, it must be upon the ground that prohibiting keeping open stores for the sale of this character of merchandise upon that day is necessary for the welfare of the public. “Experience has demonstrated that to permit class legislation where a general law can be made applicable is fraught with danger, for it frequently

results that a legislative body, under the guise of a law, oppress a class or a particular avocation. . . . “We conclude, therefore, that . . . a business or occupation which is not liable to interfere with public morality, or tend to create disorder, and over which the city has no special control, can not be singled out, and made the subject of prohibition on Sunday.”

In these days when our legislatures and courts are being dominated by the enemies of liberty, it is encouraging when a court will enunciate such principles as the above. We should ever remember to pray for the magistrates and judges of our land, that God will influence them in their decisions in favor of justice.

H. F. KETRING.