MASSACHUSETTS SABBATH by C. W. S.

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 8, 1877

MASSACHUSETTS SABBATH.

By C. W. S.

LAWS AFFECTING ITS OBSERVANCE.

“In reference to the observance of the Lord’s day the Supreme Court has just rendered an important decision in the case of the Commonwealth, by complaint, vs. Gehring Has. The defendant was complained of in the Roxbury District Court in June last for keeping an open shop on the Lord’s day. The case went to the Superior Court, and was tried at the September term, and the defendant was convicted upon the 18th of that month. Upon the 19th, Mr. George Sennett, the counsel for the defendant, filed exception, upon the ground that his client conscientiously believed that the seventh day of the week ought to be observed as the Sabbath, that he so observed it, and disturbed no one.

“The Court ruled that this was no defense; that Sec. 1, Chap. 84, of the General Statutes, contained two classes of offenders, so far as the ninth section was concerned, viz.: first, those who keep open a shop, warehouse, or workshop on the Lord’s day, and, second, those doing labor, business, or work, etc., on Sunday; and that Sec. 9 of the same chapter relieved only the second offense from punishment (i. e., doing business or work upon the Lord’s day), and made the first offense (keeping open shop for doing such business) absolute.

“The defendant acknowledged that he had committed this offense, and the jury was directed to find him guilty if the jurors believed that he kept an open shop upon the Lord’s day for the purpose of doing business with the public therein, whatever his conscientious scruples about the seventh day might be.

“To this ruling the counsel also excepted. The exceptions have now been overruled, and the following rescript has been sent down:—

“1. The ninth section, Chap. 84, of the General Statutes does not permit one who conscientiously observes the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath to keep open shop on the first day. “2. The chapter 84, General Statutes, is not unconstitutional.

“An abstract from the General Statutes follows:—

“Chapter 84, Section 1. Whoever keeps open his shop, warehouse, or workhouse, or does any manner of labor, business, or work, except works of necessity and charity, or is present at any dancing or public diversion, show or entertainment, or takes part in any sport, game, or play on the Lord’s day, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $10.00 for every offense.

“Sec. 3. Whoever, keeping a house, shop, cellar, or place of public entertainment or refreshment, entertains therein on the Lord’s day, any persons not being travelers, strangers, or lodgers, or suffers such persons on such day to abide or remain therein, or in the yards, or orchards, or fields appertaining to the same, drinking or spending their time idly or at play, etc., shall be punished by fine not exceeding $5.00 for each person so entertained.

“Sec. 9. Whoever conscientiously believes that the seventh day of the week ought to be observed as the Sabbath, and actually refrains from secular business, travel, 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, or first day of the week; provided that he disturbs no other person.”—Boston Traveler.

The above shows the decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in the case of the Commonwealth vs. Gehring Has, noticed in REVIEW, No. 3, present volume.

In consideration of Sec. 9 of the above abstract, we are led to wonder at the decision of the court. That section exempts any conscientious observer of the seventh day from penalty “for performing secular business, travel, or labor on the first day of the week; provided that he disturbs no other person.”

In the name of common sense, how is a man who keeps a shop going to do secular business on Sunday with his shop closed? And the law allows him to do secular business. Now is not that a very fine distinction which the court made when he ruled that Sec. 1, Chap. 84, refers to two classes of offenders? It reads thus: “Whoever keeps open his shop, warehouse, or workhouse, or does any manner of labor, business, or work—;” and the division is made right in that clause, thus: “First, those who keep open a shop,” etc., and second, “those doing labor, business, or work, etc., on Sunday;” and the Court says that Sec. 9 relieves only the second class from punishment.

With two good eyes, any one ought to see that the clause, doing “any manner of business,” which is sliced off into the second and pardonable part of Sec. 1, covers as much as the whole of that first clause, “whoever keeps open his shop, warehouse, or workhouse,” which the court has dissected from the body of the section, and declared unpardonable. The Court rules that Sec. 9 exempts a certain class of persons from penalty for doing “any manner of labor, business, or work,” on Sunday, but it will not exempt them from penalty for keeping open a warehouse.

If an observer of the seventh day keeping a dry-goods store opens his door and sells goods to customers, he is doing business. If he does this on Sunday, is he not exempt from penalty as coming under the second division which the wise court has made,—that of doing business on Sunday? Leaving the Court, is he not exempted by the legislative voice of Sec. 9, which says, he “shall not be liable to the penalties of this chapter for performing secular business . . . . on the first day of the week”?

We do not expect to change the decision of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, but we must be allowed to think that the decision is a little warped. Let the warm sunlight of the fourth commandment shine upon the mind of the Court for a season, and we think the “warp” would straighten, and the difference between doing business on Sunday and doing business on Sunday would not be so apparent.

We are particularly interested in this case because we are looking for the time when the law will be clear in its protection of Sunday; and we think of the assurance with which decisions will be rendered then, when we see how easily the thing is done now, though the law has to be bent. C. W. S.