Note and Comment by Editor

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · Nov 17, 1904

Note and Comment

By Editor

From press items which come to our notice from time to time it is evident that the movement to enforce the Sunday sabbath is by no means dead or dying. Here is an item from a Massachusetts paper, which shows the sentiment that is shaping things in that part of the country:—

Plymouth, October 21: In Plymouth county superior court this morning the case of Edwin M. White, charged with violation of the Sunday law by allowing his cranberry pickers to work on Sunday, was resumed. . . .

Judge Lawton ruled that the gathering of berries to save them from threatened damage by weather conditions was not a work of necessity or charity within the meaning of the law. The case will be carried to the supreme court.

All Sunday laws allow the doing of works of “necessity or mercy” on Sunday, but not one of them defines what works of necessity and mercy are. Consequently it is left to the opinion of the judge or jury to settle the question whether the work complained of was of that class or not. The Sunday law, instead of clearly prescribing what a person may or may not do, compels him to shape his conduct by mere indefinite opinions, which vary as widely as do the individual characteristics of the persons who may be called to sit upon his case. The plea is often made in behalf of Sunday legislation that it is a necessity where some shops or stores are to be closed on Sunday, that all should be closed, to save those who desire to close from a little loss in trade. In this instance, however, it was deemed not necessary that Sunday work should be performed in order to avert great pecuniary loss which was being caused by the frosty weather. The whole history of Sunday legislation shows that it has its origin and support, not in reason or human necessity, but in zeal for Sunday as a religious day.