Page 651 |
Previous | 651 of 1505 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
284 Document No. 6. [Session
of the Revisal, we flud that it simply provides that tlie first day of
January, the 19th day of January, the 22d day of February, etc.,
"are declared to be public holidays." There is no penalty or punish-ment
prescribed for persons working on one of these holidays, nor
does it declare any work or labor on a public holiday illegal.
The statute does not purport in terms of effect to prohibit pei--
sons from pursuing their usual avocations on such days, nor is there
any inhibition upon public officials to exercise their offices respect-ively.
The only legal effect that a public holiday has is that it makes
bank papers and other contracts, etc., which fall due upon a public
holiday, not due until the following day. While all persons should
observe these holidays in compliance with the request of the Legis-lature,
it is not mandatory upon them to do so. The statute simply
permits suspension of business, but does not make it unlawful to do
and transact official business, whether judicial or otherwise. This
is made evident by reference to sections 2836 and 2837 of the Revisal.
in respect to Sunday. The statute positively forbids every person
to "do or exercise any labor, business or work of ordinary calling,
works of necessity or charity alone excepted, etc., on Sunday." So.
while the statute positively forbids any work or labor to be done on
Sunday, and provides a tine therefor, on a public holiday it simply
permits a cessation of business.
This distinction is clearly established in the case of State v. Moore,
104 N. C, 747. Xevy truly yours, IIayden Clement.
Asuistnnt AttorueihGeiirral.
PROHIBITION ACT NOT VIOLATION OF INTERSTATE COM-MERCE
CLAUSE.
Attokney-Gener.vl's Department,
Raleigh, N. C. October 30, 1908.
Hon. Bart. JI. Gatlino.
Chalniiau County Democratic Executive Committee. Uaieifili. X. C.
Dear Sir:—Replying to your favor, I beg to state that there is
nothing in the prohibition act, which goes into effect the tirst of Jan-uary,
1009, which was intended to be, or which could in any manner
be construed to be, a violation of the interstate commerce clause. If
a party from another State were to ship liquor into this State in an
original package, to a purchaser, who had sent money direct to him,
that would be interstate commerce, and an action would not lie
against a party receiving the same for the illegal sale of intoxicating
liquors.
The meaning of section 4 of the prohibition act is simply that, if
intoxicating liquor is shipped from one point in this State to another,
Object Description
Description
| Title | Page 651 |
| Full Text | 284 Document No. 6. [Session of the Revisal, we flud that it simply provides that tlie first day of January, the 19th day of January, the 22d day of February, etc., "are declared to be public holidays." There is no penalty or punish-ment prescribed for persons working on one of these holidays, nor does it declare any work or labor on a public holiday illegal. The statute does not purport in terms of effect to prohibit pei-- sons from pursuing their usual avocations on such days, nor is there any inhibition upon public officials to exercise their offices respect-ively. The only legal effect that a public holiday has is that it makes bank papers and other contracts, etc., which fall due upon a public holiday, not due until the following day. While all persons should observe these holidays in compliance with the request of the Legis-lature, it is not mandatory upon them to do so. The statute simply permits suspension of business, but does not make it unlawful to do and transact official business, whether judicial or otherwise. This is made evident by reference to sections 2836 and 2837 of the Revisal. in respect to Sunday. The statute positively forbids every person to "do or exercise any labor, business or work of ordinary calling, works of necessity or charity alone excepted, etc., on Sunday." So. while the statute positively forbids any work or labor to be done on Sunday, and provides a tine therefor, on a public holiday it simply permits a cessation of business. This distinction is clearly established in the case of State v. Moore, 104 N. C, 747. Xevy truly yours, IIayden Clement. Asuistnnt AttorueihGeiirral. PROHIBITION ACT NOT VIOLATION OF INTERSTATE COM-MERCE CLAUSE. Attokney-Gener.vl's Department, Raleigh, N. C. October 30, 1908. Hon. Bart. JI. Gatlino. Chalniiau County Democratic Executive Committee. Uaieifili. X. C. Dear Sir:—Replying to your favor, I beg to state that there is nothing in the prohibition act, which goes into effect the tirst of Jan-uary, 1009, which was intended to be, or which could in any manner be construed to be, a violation of the interstate commerce clause. If a party from another State were to ship liquor into this State in an original package, to a purchaser, who had sent money direct to him, that would be interstate commerce, and an action would not lie against a party receiving the same for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors. The meaning of section 4 of the prohibition act is simply that, if intoxicating liquor is shipped from one point in this State to another, |
