438 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
‘*free exercise of religious professsion or worship without dis- 
crimination or preference.”’ 
The court held that the law in selecting the Christian Sabbath 
and providing for its observance declared a preference in favor of 
those professing such religion, and that the law was unconstitutional 
and void. Judge Field dissented and cited the numerous cases in 
other states, notably Pennsylvania and Ohio, and the immemorial 
exercise of such power by legislatures, but in vain. 
The majority of the court were in favor of applying the constitu- 
tion liberally according to its terms and did so. 1 But it was only 
a matter of a few years when the conception of the uses and 
powers of government had become more settled, and had been 
strengthened by the civil war, that California joined the list of 
states which interpret their constitutions by common law prece- 
dents and uphold the observance of the Sabbath. 
When this was done it was on the ground that such requirement 
was a valid police regulation; that to obtain the full benefit of a 
day of rest there must be uniformity in its observance, and that it is 
the right and duty of the state to secure such uniformity. We see 
in this case again the vindication of public order for its own sake, 
as before in Vanderbilt vs. Adams and Commonwealth ws. Alger. 
1 Ex parte Andrews, 18 Cad., 678. 
