State v. Petit

• Decision Date: 02 December 1898
• Citation: 77 N.W. 225,74 Minn. 376
• Parties: STATE v. PETIT.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

74 Minn. 376

77 N.W. 225

STATE

v.PETIT.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 2, 1898.

Appeal from municipal court of Minneapolis; W. A. Kerr, Judge.

Paul J. Petit was convicted of keeping open a barber shop on Sunday, and appeals. Affirmed.

Buck, J., dissenting.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The state may, as a police regulation for the promotion of the physical, mental, and moral welfare of its citizens, establish, as a civil and political institution, the first day of the week as a day of rest, and prohibit the performance upon it of all labor or business except works of necessity or charity.

2. Gen. St. 1894, § 6513, is not obnoxious to the objection of being ‘class legislation’ because it declares that, as a matter of law, keeping open a barber shop on Sunday, for the purpose of hair cutting and shaving, is not a work of necessity or charity, while, as to other kinds of labor or business, it leaves that question to be determined as one of fact. Benton & Molyneaux, for appellant.

H. W. Childs and H. D. Dickinson, for the State.

MITCHELL, J.

The defendant was tried and convicted of keeping open a barber shop on Sunday for the purpose of cutting hair and shaving beards, contrary to the provisions of Gen. St. 1894, § 6513, which reads as follows: ‘All labor on Sunday is prohibited excepting the works of necessity or charity. In works of necessity or charity is included whatever is needful during the day for good order, health or comfort of the community: provided, however, that keeping open a barber shop on Sunday for the purpose of cutting hair and shaving beards shall not be deemed a work of necessity or charity.’ The only question is as to the constitutionality of this act, which is assailed by the defendant on two grounds: (1) That the whole act is invalid, it not being within the police power of the state to prohibit any kind of labor or business on Sunday which does not interfere with the peace and good order of the community; (2) and mainly that, in view of the proviso, the act is invalid, as being ‘class legislation.’

1. We shall not spend much time on the first point. It has been decided in this state, in accordance with an almost unbroken line of authorities elsewhere, that the legislature may, in the exercise of the police power of the state, establish by law, as a civil and political institution, the first day of the week as a day of rest, and may prohibit upon it the performance of any manner of labor, business, or work, except only works of necessity or charity. State v. Ludwig, 21 Minn. 202. So-called Sunday legislation has, with many persons, and occasionally even with courts, been the subject of adverse criticism, as an unwarranted interference with that freedom of religious belief and practice which is guarantied to every man by the constitution. These criticisms proceed upon an entirely erroneous theory as to the object of such legislation. In some states it has been held that Christianity is part of the common law of this country, and Sunday legislation is upheld, in whole or in part, upon that ground. Even if permissible, it is not necessary to resort to any such reason to sustain such legislation. The ground upon which such legislation is generally upheld is that it is a sanitary measure, and as such a legitimate exercise of the police power. It proceeds upon the theory, entertained by most of those who have investigated the subject, that the physical, intellectual, and moral welfare of mankind requires a periodical day of rest from labor, and, as some particular day must be fixed, the one most naturally selected is that which is regarded...