THE Times, of Denver, Colo., bearing date of May 9, contains portions of an opinion rendered by Chief Justice Gabbert, which was concurred in by all the justices of the court, making the decision unanimous in support of the ordinance closing the Denver barber shops on Sunday. We note the following expressions:
The experience of centuries has demonstrated the necessity of periodical cessation from secular labor. This rule of conduct with respect to secular pursuits is recognized by the entire civilized world as essential to the physical and moral welfare of society. Sunday ordinances are therefore sustained as constitutional, upon the theory that for the purpose of promoting the general welfare of the inhabitants of a city it is necessary that their usual and ordinary avocations, except those of necessity or charity, should be suspended upon the Sabbath day, and that for this reason such ordinances are within the domain of the police power of the municipality enacting them. This is settled by a practically unbroken line of decisions.
The business of carrying on a barber shop is in every respect lawful and respectable; it is in no sense objectionable from any point of view, but these are not the tests to be applied to the ordinance in question.
The business is purely secular, and not a work of necessity or charity.
To this the Times adds that officers of Journeymen Barbers' Union No. 205 of Denver have expressed their thanks to the ministers and others who have helped in the contest to uphold the ordinance.
Should there exist a lingering doubt in the minds of any that Sunday laws are religious in character, the foregoing opinion of Chief Justice Gabbert would remove it. The justice frankly says, "The business of carrying on a barber shop is in every respect lawful and respectable; it is in no sense objectionable from any point of view."
What! a business which "is in every respect lawful and respectable," and "in no sense objectionable from any point of view," considered a crime if performed on Sunday? All can plainly see that it is the religious character of the day that renders "lawful," "respectable" work which is "in no sense objectionable from any point of view," a crime on Sunday.
This opinion emphasizes the idea that the reason the work of a barber is unlawful on Sunday is because it is "secular." Secular means worldly, pertaining to the world. Thus again it is seen that this decision pertains to things which are heavenly or sacred, and are therefore religious.
The justice says further that "the experience of centuries has demonstrated the necessity of periodical cessation from secular labor." That people should refrain from secular pursuits on one day in the week is not the only thing that "the experience of centuries has demonstrated." Experience has proven it a necessity, for a man's spiritual good, to pray, go to church, get baptized, and partake of the communion. But because centuries have proven the necessity of these things, shall the state enforce by civil enactment these things which are necessary to one's spiritual good? An opinion requiring the recognition of these Christian duties would be just as consistent as the foregoing opinion concerning Sunday observance.
Another thing which the experience of centuries has also demonstrated is that, as the result of the opinion of civil magistrates, of which the chief justice of Colorado is typical, we have had as the fruitage the union of church and state, with all its baneful bigotry, oppression, and persecution, which has stained the pages of history with the blood of countless martyrs who have dared protest against such an opinion.
