a manner as to 'interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of the week as holy time.'

"The question for consideration is whether the plaintiffs in error come within the exception of the statute which gives to those who do 'servile labor on the first day of the week' the right to set up their religion as a defense.

Legislative Intent of Exception "From a logical standpoint, what is it that the law wishes to except? Is it the 'servile

JUDGE SIMMONS

labor,' or is it the 'religion' of the accused? Evidently it is the religion.

"I do not know when the different sections of the Sunday law of your State were passed, but I do know that all of these sections are kindred legislation, and pertain to the same subject matter, and under the established rule of construction they should be construed in pari materia.

"If they are thus construed, the court will look upon all of the sections of this law as if

they were passed at the same time. If tha is the case, then it is evident that it was the legislative intent to allow those who 'uni formly keep another day of the week as holy time' to set up their religion as a justifiable defense. This defense should be allowed ir respective of the kind of labor performed It would be an absurdity to hold that the legislature intended only to except those wh: perform 'servile labor.' Should the cour take this position, the statute would be sub ject to the constitutional question of class legislation and would be void.

"By giving the statute a liberal construction, and by applying the religious defense to all the sections of the statute, where it can be consistently done, all classes of religionists in this commonwealth will have their liberty of conscience.

Oklahoma Grants Broad Toleration

"When we consider the liberal constitutional guaranty of this State, which provides that, Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shal be secured, and no inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religiou worship;' and when we consider that Okla homa has a law which forbids any one from maliciously procuring any process in a civi action to be served on Saturday upon any per son who keeps Saturday as holy time;' and when we further consider that criminal stat utes are strictly construed, while their ex ceptions and provisos are liberally construed. it certainly will do no violence to the law under consideration for this exception to apply to all the sections of the law, and not to limit it simply to that provision pertaining to those who do 'servile labor.'

"Should the law be subject to such a re stricted construction simply because subsequent sessions of the Legislature, that added the different sections, had neglected to incorporate in them the exception in favor of those who conscientiously keep another day for the Sabbath?

"As previously stated, it is a crime for any one to have a process served on Saturday on one who keeps that day as holy time.

Consider together that law and the exception in Sec. 2406 and it is evident that it was the legislative intent to except those people

who conscientiously observe the seventh day." Judge Armstrong: "That would cover any day, Judge. It would cover anybody who kept any other day in the week, if it covered anything at all. It would not cover necessarily the seventh day alone."

Mr. Simmons: "Let it apply as Your Honor suggests to any day. Let any day be conscientiously observed, and, if Your Honor believes it was the legislative intent that a man's religion should be excepted, then, we contend, that this law, pertaining to the service of process on Saturday, should be construed together with the exception in Sec. 2406, which would necessarily include those who keep the seventh day."

Judge Armstrong: "It would include them and any one else who keeps another day." Mr. Simmons: "Yes, Your Honor. The object of the Legislature was to give the citizen religious liberty, and we insist that all these sections should be construed together. If the law is not construed in this way, then, we contend, that it is unconstitutional.

"We hold that the supreme law of this State

read both ways, and in the mechanical construction of the briefs both sides have yielded to the temptation of trying to make the expressions of the court speak as loud as we can in those paragraphs that are for us, and in trying to make them speak as softly as we can in those paragraphs that are against us. We make our confession in advance which the reading of the briefs will verify.

"We believe the lack of uniformity in the decisions of the courts in upholding the constitutionality and unconstitutionality of Sunday laws is evidenced by the effort of the

gives every citizen his right of conscience. To this constitutional provision all statutory legislation will have to yield. The plaintiffs En error have done no wrong; they have vioated no law; they should be acquitted. They have kept the Sabbath of Jehovah according to his sacred precepts. With the liberal constitutional guaranty of this great commonwealth, under what pretense could a law be enforced that would make a citizen do vioence to his conscience?

Purely Religious Legislation

"The decisions of the different States have given different reasons for the existence of Sunday laws. Each State has its own peuliar Sunday law, and gives its own peculiar construction for the constitutionality of the aw. Your Honors will observe that in the riefs submitted by the plaintiffs in error and y the State both cite authorities that can be

"Let us apply these propositions to the Sunday law of this State.

This law reads, that: 'The first day of the week being by very general consent set apart for rest and religious uses.' The very reason for the existence of the statute is shown in its introduction. Its explanation for being a law is because, 'The first day of the week is set apart for rest and religious uses.' Your Honors know that both Sunday and Sabbath were born in the church. They are questions of faith on which the applicant decides when he becomes a member of the organization. The observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, or Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, is a test of fellowship in the ecclesiastical bodies that keep the respective days. Sunday, or the Sabbath, has no meaning unless it is related to the duty we owe our God. Labors, pursuits, and businesses that are licensed and deemed honorable during the weekly days, can only be illegalized by virtue of the religion that is a part of Sunday legislation. Sunday and Sunday laws have no meaning unless they are recognized as a statutory way of prescribing religious duties.

Enforcing Church Doctrines

"What is the State of Oklahoma doing? It is picking up a church doctrine, a church faith, and incorporating it into the law of the land, and compelling all citizens, regardless of their conscientious convictions, to obey the language of the statute. This law is leaving off the proper administrations of the functions pertaining to the Temple of Justice, where civil rights and civil conduct should be brought for review, and it is entering the very sanctuary of the soul, and standing between the individual and his God. What excuse has the Legislature for the passage of such a law? It is because the first day of the week by very general consent is set apart for rest and religious uses.

"Suppose the first day of the week by very general consent was not set apart for rest and religious uses, would there have been a Sunday law? We say there would not, from the reasons assigned in the statute. Therefore, we contend that the law is religious, that it makes a union of church and state, and, therefore, is unconstitutional. This law is religious and unconstitutional because in its application,

and in its enforcement, it interferes with the plaintiffs in error in being Christians, and it molests them in their person and property on account of their mode of religious worship.

Interferes with Liberty of Conscience

"We repeat it, Your Honors, it interferes with their being Christians, and we emphasize that statement. Their construction and interpretation of the Scriptures are necessarily and rightfully in harmony with their conscience. The duties they owe their Creator, and the manner of discharging them, are in obedience to the exposition of the Bible according to the sect or denomination to which they belong Why should they not be allowed to exercise these inalienable rights? Should a law be permitted to remain upon the statute books the enforcement of which would take away these rights that have never been surrendered by the citizen to the state, and would interfere with their being Christians? How does this law interfere with their being Christians. Why Your Honor, according to the exegesis of the Bible to which they have subscribed their faith. it was Christ that made the world. In the Bible they turn to the first chapter of John and in the first verses they read these words: 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God The same was in the beginning with God. A things were made by him; and without hic: was not anything made that was made... He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

"In the first chapter of the Colossian letter, the fifteenth and the sixteenth verses read 'Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature: for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him.'

"It is not a question whether or not their idea of the Scripture is correct. It is not a question, for the purposes of this lawsuit. whether Seventh-day Adventists are right of not. We are not quoting Scripture to exploit their religion, but we are quoting Scripture to show that this Sunday law infringes upor the religious rights of the accused.

"From the above quotations it will be seen.

Your Honors, that they believe it was the voice of Christ that spoke the world into existence: For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.'

The Seventh Day is Christ's Rest Day

"They believe he made the first day, the second, the third, etc., in the first weekly cycle. That he made the seventh day, the Sabbath. That he kept the Sabbath, or rested on it; that he sanctified it, and blessed it. They believe from their interpretation of the Bible, that it was the voice of Christ on the trembling peaks of Mt. Sinai that said, 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work.' They believe when Christ was on earth he kept the seventh day, Sabbath, and that he worked on Sunday, the first day of the week. They believe it was Christ that said: 'The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.' If the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath, then it is logical to infer that Christ made the Sabbath, or he could not be Lord of the Sabbath. And if he is Lord of the Sabbath, then the seventh day, Sabbath, is the Lord's day. This is their religion. Give them the benefit of their conscience. Why not let them worship their God without legal molestation?"

Judge Armstrong: "The trouble is that no one is interfering with their Sabbath. They are transacting business on the other man's Sabbath."

Mr. Simmons: "That is just the point, Your Honor. That is the argument that a great many of the honorable and learned judges make."

Mr. Simmons: "Let us go back to the statement made by Your Honor to the effect that this law gives our people religious liberty. It is true, as Your Honor has suggested, that the statute permits them to observe the seventh day, Sabbath, but it compels them also to keep Sunday, to legally keep Sunday, by cessation from labor, notwithstanding the same God that enjoins them to keep the seventh day, Sabbath, also commands them to work six days, which would include Sunday.

"This Sunday law compels them to do the very same thing, or, more properly speaking,

to refrain from doing the same thing, in order to legally keep Sunday that the law of God tells them they shall refrain from doing in order to keep the Sabbath. Thus they are required to give a Sabbath sanctity to Sunday that runs counter to their faith. Is that religious freedom?"

Majorities do Not Decide Religious
Questions

Judge Armstrong: "Conceding that that is correct - has not the majority of the people the right to fix the rule of this country? The majority of the citizens of the United States do not believe as your people, and when the majority makes a law, is it not as much the duty of the members of your church to observe that as anybody else?"

The Danger of the Tyranny of the Majority

Mr. Simmons: "Your Honor, it is true the majority rules in civil matters. But is the majority always right? The danger of a despotic government lies in the despot. The danger of a monarchical government lies in the monarch; and the danger of a democraticrepublican form of government, like our own, lies in the majority. Can the majority make wrong right? Can the majority make an unconstitutional law constitutional? Can the majority legislate about inalienable rights which belong to the citizen and not to the state?

"James Madison, on this point, writes:

"Wherever the real power in a government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our government the real power lies in the majority of the community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. This is a truth of great importance, but not yet sufficiently attended to. Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful and interested party than by a powerful and interested prince.'

"We should be guardians of the religious liberty of all citizens. If the principle involved