THE town of Everett, in the highly civilized State of Massachusetts, is the scene of the latest prosecution of a seventh-day observer for refusing to keep Sunday. Brother Wayne T. Gibson was summoned on August 4 to appear in court to answer the charge of having done secular work on Sunday; namely, painting his barn. The hearing of the case was set for Thursday, the 14th. This case affords another illustration of the value (?) of Sunday-law exemption clauses. There is a plain exemption for seventh-day observers in the Massachusetts law. It reads:— SECTION 13.— Whoever conscientiously believes that the seventh-day of the week ought to be observed as the Sabbath, and actually refrains from secular business and labor on that day, shall not be liable to the penalties of this chapter for performing secular business, travel, or labor on the Lord’s day, if he disturbs no other person. Upon what plea, if any, this plain provision of the statute was set aside in Brother Gibson’s case we cannot think, unless it was that the swish of his paint brush was causing a disturbance. This may have been, for zealous Sunday observers with an unkindly feeling toward those keeping the seventh day have been known to be “disturbed” by things of no greater magnitude than this. Once before, in 1894, Brother Gibson was arrested for the like offense, was tried, and sentenced to pay fifty dollars’ fine. He appealed the case, but no decision was reached, and the fine was not collected. We have not learned the outcome in the present case. Another recent case is that of E. N. and G. W. Vaughan, brothers, in Salisbury, N. C. They were arrested for selling melons and ice cream on Sunday, tried before the mayor, and fined ten dollars, which they paid. Not only was this unjust from the standpoint of the rights of conscience, but from that of the State law as well, which says nothing about the sale of such articles of food on Sunday, or the sale of anything except intoxicating liquor.