Volume XIII
Number 36
February 2
1946
THE STATE
A Weekly Survey of North Carolina
Entered as second-class matter. June 1. 1933, at the PosloOice at Ralcish. North Carolina, under the Act ol March 3.
187».
Observance of the Sabbath
Some interesting changes have taken plaice
in North Carolina in connection with in¬
terpretation of the proper way to observe
the Sabbaitli — and punishment for violation
thereof.
Attorney Rowland, of
Willow Springs, came into
kour office a few days ago and
called our attention to an interest¬
ing case — Rodman v. Robinson, in
the North Carolina Reports, (134,
P. 503).
It has to do with whether a con¬
tract, made on Sunday, is legal or
not. In the opinion handed down
in this particular case by Chief
Justice Clark, the contract is duly
declared to be legal.
We believe you’ll be interested
in some of Judge Clark’s comments
concerning Sabbath observation,
because so far as we know, his
opinion in this matter is still the
law of the land.
"In Melvin v. Easley, 52 N. C.,
356, the Court said: ‘The statute
in its operation is confined to
manual, visible or noisy labor,
such as is calculated to disturb
other people; for example, keep¬
ing an open shop or working at a
blacksmith’s anvil. The Legisla¬
ture has power to prohibit labor
of this kind on Sunday on the
ground of public decency. . . . But
when it goes further and prohibits
labor which is done in private, the
power is exceeded and the statute
is void.’ In that case it was held
that selling a horse on Sunday was
not forbidden by the statute, as
dealing in horses was not Melvin’s
‘ordinary calling’.
Another Authority
"In State v. Brooksbanks, 28
N. C.. 73, Ruffin, C. J„ held that
it was not indictable to sell goods
in open shop on Sunday, and in
State v. Williams, 26 N. C.. 400. the
Court through the same Judge held
THE STATE. FEBRUARY 2. 1946
it not indictable to work on Sun¬
day. it not being indictable either
at common law (citing Rex. v.
Brothcrton,) or by our statute,
adding: ‘It is clear that the making
of bargains on Sunday was not a
crime against the State, for con¬
tracts made on that day are bind¬
ing. It has often been so ruled in
this State, and after elaborate
argument and time of advice.’
"Counsel for defendant contend
that Christianity is a part of the
law of the land, and hence, inde¬
pendent of any statute, the contract
is invalid. If the observance of
Sunday were commanded by stat¬
ute as an act of religion or worship,
such statute would be absolutely
forbidden. The founder of the
Christian religion said that his
‘Kingdom was not of this world’,
and under our Constitutions, both
State and Federal, no act can be
required or forbidden by statute
because such act may be in accord¬
ance with or against the religious
views of anyone. The first amend¬
ment to the Federal Constitution,
provides: ‘Congress shall make
no law respecting an establish¬
ment of religion or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof,’ and the
Constitution of this State. Article
I, Section 26, reads: ‘All men have
a natural and unalienable right to
worship Almighty God according
to the dictates of their own con¬
science, and no human authority
should in any case whatever con¬
trol or interfere with the right of
conscience.’ If, therefore, the ces¬
sation of labor or the prohibition or
performance of any act were pro¬
vided by statute for religious rea¬
sons, the statute could not be main¬
tained.
"The Seventh Day Baptists and
some others, as well as the He¬
brews, keep Saturday, and the
Mohammedans observe Friday. To
compel them or anyone else to ob¬
serve Sunday for religious reasons
would be contrary to our funda¬
mental law. The only ground upon
which ‘Sunday laws’ can be sus¬
tained is that in pursuance of the
police power the state can and
ought to require a cessation of
labor upon specified days to pro¬
tect the masses from being worn
out by incessant and unremitting
toil. If such days happen to be
those upon which the larger part
of the people observe a cessation
of toil for religious reasons, it is
not an objection but a convenience.
Yet such statute cannot be con¬
strued beyond its terms so as to
make the signing of a contract on
Sunday invalid when the words
prohibit only ‘labor, business or
work of one’s ordinary calling.’
"It is correct to say that Chris¬
tianity is a part of the common law
of the land. . . . Even if Christian¬
ity could be deemed the basis of
our government, its own organic
law must be found in the New
Testament, and there we shall look
in vain for any requirement to ob¬
serve Sunday, or indeed any day.
The Master’s references to the Sab¬
bath were not in support but in
derogation of the extreme observ¬
ance of the Mosiac day of rest in¬
dulged in by the Pharisees. The
Old Testament commanded the ob¬
servance of the Sabbath, but that
was an injunction laid upon the
Hebrews, and it designated Satur¬
day, not Sunday, as the day of rest,
prescribing a thoroughness of ab-
( Continued on page 20 1
3