Paul Petit v. State of Minnesota
Decision Date | 09 April 1900 |
Docket Number | No. 194,194 |
Citation | 177 U.S. 164,44 L.Ed. 716,20 S.Ct. 666 |
Parties | PAUL J. PETIT, Plff. in Err. , v. STATE OF MINNESOTA |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Joseph W. Molyneaux and Albert E. Clarke for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. W. B. Douglas and C. W. Somerby for defendant in error.
Petit was tried and convicted of keeping open a barber shop on Sunday, for the purpose of cutting hair and shaving beards, contrary to § 6513 of the General Statutes of Minnesota for 1894, and the judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of Minnesota. 74 Minn. 376, 77 N. W. 225. This writ of error was then allowed.
Section 6513 read as follows:
We have uniformly recognized state laws relating to the observance of Sunday as enacted in the legitimate exercise of the police power of the state. The subject was fully considered in Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U. S. 299, 41 L. ed. 166, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1086, and it is unnecessary to go over the ground again. It was there said: 'The legislature having, as will not be disputed, power to enact laws to promote the order and to secure the comfort, happiness, and health of the people, it was within its discretion to fix the day when all labor within the limits of the state, works of necessity and charity excepted, should cease.' And these observations of Mr. Justice Field, then a member of the supreme court of California, in Ex parte Newman, 9 Cal. 502, whose opinion was approved in Ex parte Andrews, 18 Cal. 678, in reference to a statute of California relating to that day, were quoted: Well-nigh innumerable decisions of the state courts have sustained the validity of such laws.
But it is contended that by reason of the proviso this act must be held unconstitutional, because thereby restricted in its operation on the particular class of craftsmen to which Petit belonged, as contradistinguished from other classes of labor. The proviso was added in 1887 to § 225 of the Penal Code of Minnesota of 1885 (Laws Minn. 1887, chap. 54).
By the original statute all labor was prohibited, excepting the works of necessity or charity, which included whatever was needful during the day for the good order, health, or comfort of the community. As the supreme court said, if keeping a barber shop open on Sunday for the purposes of shaving and hair cutting was not a work of necessary or charity, within the meaning of the statute as it originally read, the amendment did not change the law. And it would be going very far to hold that because out of abundant caution the legislature may have sought to obviate any misconstruction as to what should be considered needful during that day for the comfort of the community, as respected work generally so desirable as tonsorial labor, by declaring the meaning of the statute as it stood, therefore the law was transferred to the category of class legislation. The legislature had the right to define its own language, and the statute thus interpreted could not reasonably be held to have made any discrimination.
The question is not whether the bare fact of shaving some particular individual under exceptional circumstances might not be upheld, but whether the public exercise of the occupation of shaving and hair cutting could be justified as a work of necessity or charity.
In Phillips v. Innes, 4 Clark & F. 234, the House of Lords held that shaving on Sunday was not a work of necessity or mercy or charity. The act, 29 Car. II.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ballard v. Mississippi Cotton Oil Co.
... ... cannot be successfully contended that the state may not ... prescribe the liabilities under which corporations created by ... 706; 28 L ... Ed., 1089). To the same effect is the case of Petit v ... Minn, 177 U.S. 164 (20 S.Ct. 666; 44 L. Ed., 716), ... holding ... the state of Minnesota, and is reported in 16 N.W. 413 (31 ... Minn. 11; 47 Am. Rep., 771). In ... to St. L. R. C. v. Paul, 62 Am. St. Rep., at page ... 181, top." We note that the directions of ... ...
-
Two Guys From Harrison, Inc. v. Furman
...We find nothing to the contrary in Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U.S. 299, 16 S.Ct. 1086, 41 L.Ed. 166 (1896), Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U.S. 164, 20 S.Ct. 666, 44 L.Ed. 716 (1900) or in Friedman v. People, 341 U.S. 907, 71 S.Ct. 623, 95 L.Ed. 1345 (1951), which dismissed for want of a substanti......
-
Moss v. Hornig
...710, 5 S.Ct. 730, 28 L.Ed. 1145; Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U.S. 299, 304, 318, 16 S.Ct. 1086, 41 L.Ed. 166; Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U.S. 164, 165, 20 S. Ct. 666, 44 L.Ed. 716. Such legislation is being increasingly regarded as day-of-rest legislation rather than as Sabbath or Sunday closin......
-
Stark v. Backus
...188, 84 N. E. 3, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 646;Pasadena v. Stimson, 91 Cal. 238, 27 Pac. 604. To be distinguished: Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U. S. 164, 20 Sup. Ct. 666, 44 L. Ed. 716;Id., 74 Minn. 376, 77 N. W. 225;People v. Havnor, 149 N. Y. 195, 43 N. E. 541, 31 L. R. A. 689, 52 Am. St. Rep. 707;......
-
Sunday law in the nineteenth century.
...necessity). In one of its few Sunday cases, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Minnesota's ban on Sunday barbering. See Petit v. Minnesota, 177 U.S. 164, 165, 168 (1900) (noting that resting for one day out of seven had been "founded in experience and sustained by science"); see also People v. B......
-
Justice David Josiah Brewer and the "Christian nation" maxim.
...(commenting that Sabbath laws might be justified on the grounds that all citizens pay proper respect to the prevailing sentiment). (319) 177 U.S. 164 (320) See id. at 165 ("We have uniformly recognized state laws relating to the observance of Sunday as [a] legitimate exercise of the police ......