Another Sophistical Decision.
By W. N. G.
That learned judges can resort to sophistry in arguing legal points, and that decisions involving constitutional questions may be the result of mere personal prejudice, is shown in the recent decision by the New York Supreme Court that the barbers’ Sunday law of that state is constitutional. The law prohibits barbers from plying their vocation on Sunday, excepting in New York City and in Saratoga. The exception, of itself, makes the law class legislation, which is quite generally conceded to be unconstitutional. But, aside from this technicality, one of the reasons given by the court that the law is constitutional is that the prohibition of Sunday labor “was regulated by statute prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution and the constitution of the state.” The question therefore arises, What force at all has either the Federal Constitution or that of the state, if the preëxisting order of things must necessarily continue as before? Most people, especially we common people, suppose that the Federal and state Constitutions were adopted expressly for the purpose of inaugurating a “new order of things.” That is what is implied by the inscription, “Novus Ordo Seclorum,” on the great seal of the United States. The doctrine that Sunday legislation, or legislation of any character, can not be affected by a constitutional principle because such legislation existed prior to the Constitution, sounds very strange outside of the particular circle of people who desire legislation which can not stand on any other principle. If this strange doctrine be true, then what becomes of all the constitutional amendments that have been adopted by both the Federal and state governments for the express purpose of doing away with certain legislative regulations that existed prior to the adoption of the amendments? This new decision of the New York Supreme Court is evidently born of the now popular craze for passing as a wonderfully religious people through the enforced observance of the Sunday institution. The reasoning is on a par with the “Christian nation” dictum of the U. S. Supreme Court, which conclusion was based mainly on the acts of European governments and of the American colonies of Great Britain before this nation had an existence. It is said that “necessity is the mother of invention,” and the assumed necessity for Sunday legislation in these last days seems to be prolific of a most incongruous brood. Learned men from the theological and legal schools advance arguments in support of such legislation so illogical, so puerile, that they would meet only ridicule if offered in support of any legitimate or really meritorious proposition. Three elements must inevitably combine to establish religion by civil law in any country,—(1) a ministry ambitious of political influence, (2) a truckling law-making power, and (3) a swerving, sophistical judiciary. That all these were to be and are a characteristic of the last days is abundantly shown in the Scriptures. And where these elements prevail, the spirit of religious liberty may expect fierce encounters with that of religious tyranny in the guise of civil law. W. N. G.