DON'T PRESS THE INFLUENTIAL ONES.
By W. N. Glenn
THE Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has just rendered a decision which is about as conspicuous for going out of the way to make a point not involved in the case as is the noted "Christian Nation" decision of the U. S. Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania Sunday law was enacted in 1794, and supplemented in 1855. It prohibits all "worldly employment" on Sunday except "works of necessity and charity." There is nothing in it which specifically relates to Sunday newspapers. Some time ago the Law and Order League, of Pittsburg, began a crusade for the enforcement of the law against the Sunday papers, and a test was made of the case of a news dealer who sold such papers on his stand and delivered them to subscribers. The case was carried to the Supreme Court of the State, which has given a decision against the news dealer. Here is what the court says, as quoted by the Cleveland Plaindealer of January 6:— It is now almost a hundred years since the passage of the act of 1794. It is hardly likely that the framers of the act contemplated the possibility of Sunday newspapers. There were but few newspapers in existence at that time, and with perhaps one or two exceptions these were weekly papers of limited circulation. Since then there has been a vast development in the business of newspaper publishing as well as in other departments of trade. The development of the resources of the commonwealth has been phenomenal, as well as its growth in population. This growth has developed new events and to some extent changed the habits of the people. Among the changes which it has caused is the Sunday newspaper. Its circulation has become very extensive, and it is read by a large portion of our citizens. It has become a part of the ordinary life of the people, and it will require far more stringent legislation than the act of 1794 to uproot it. It is not our province to approve or condemn Sunday newspapers, but it is worse than useless to ignore their existence or the favor with which they have been regarded by a large portion of the community. That the court stepped out of its way to tacitly indorse "far more stringent legislation" is shown by another utterance, not essential to the judgment in the case in hand. The following is purely gratuitous:— The act of 1794 is a wise and beneficial statute, and we would regret to see it interfered with. We must, however, be allowed to express the fear that too literal an interpretation may create an antagonism that may lead to its repeal, or at least to a serious modification. There may be such a thing as excessive zeal in invoking its penalties in extreme cases. The act is in more danger from its friends than from its enemies. The court betrays a very tender solicitude for this precious bit of ancient bigotry. It will not do to press it too hard, for fear there may be a reaction against the law. There seems to be a consciousness that the majority of the people are against the enforcement of the act, and if brought to the test would insist upon its repeal, or at least to a "serious modification" of its provisions. The advice virtually means, Don't press too hard upon that class of offenders who have influence with the people or with the law-making power; our "wise and beneficial statute" might suffer in that way. And that is just the careful policy adopted in Tennessee, and formerly in Arkansas. The members of the popular churches and the influential business men and corporations are not molested. Only the observers of the commandments of God, who keep the Sabbath therein prescribed, and who are known to be nonresistant, are prosecuted for Sunday labor. But by and by, when the general government shall fall into line with a national Sunday law, and Sunday persecution gains a little firmer foothold, then look out for that "far more stringent legislation" which is so deftly hinted at by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.