The Judiciary Committee of the California Assembly, to which was referred the proposed Sunday law, reported it back with an amendment providing that every employer be compelled to recognize at least one day of every week as a day of rest. This was probably a scheme by which the committee (or a majority of them) could “kill two birds with one stone.” They could keep their promise not to smother the bill in committee, and at the same time insure its defeat. A member of the Legislature advised the friends of the bill to have it referred to the Judiciary Committee, because the Committee on Public Morals, to which such bills are usually referred, was composed of men who would not favor it. He was sure the Judiciary Committee would report it favorably. True enough, this committee fulfilled expectations to the extent of bringing the bill before the Assembly, but in the amended form which we have mentioned. Being a prominent lawyer, the chairman of that committee must have known that a law (known as the “bakers’ law”) containing the same principle was stranded in the courts not a great while ago. As a scheme to keep a promise, expressed or implied, and at the same time void the proposed measure, the amendment was a success. It would have been more statesmanlike, however, to have ignored the proposed measure on the broad ground that it was religious legislation, and outside the legitimate sphere of the Legislature. The amended bill would not satisfy those who clamor for a Sunday law, even if it were tenable, altho they claim to be actuated by a solicitude for the laboring man’s rest. Their aim is the exaltation of Sunday, and nothing else will satisfy them.