But even now it seems that the energies of the law-makers were of no avail in preventing prophanation of the Holy day by “foraignors and others,” so that twenty years later, in 1683, we find that “To prevent prophanation of the Lord’s day by foraignors or any others unessesary travelling through our Townes on that day.  It is enacted by the Court that a fitt man in each Towne be chosen, unto whom whosever hath nessessity of travell on the Lord’s day in case of danger of death, or such necessitous occations shall repaire, and makeing out such occations satisfyingly to him shall receive a Tickett from him to pas on about such like occations;” but, “if he attende not to this,” or “if it shall appeare that his plea was falce,” the hand of the law was likely to fall upon him while he contributed twenty shillings “to the use of the Collonie.”

In the Massachusetts Bay Province it was early enacted that “no traveller ... shall travel on the Lord’s day ... except by some adversity they are belated and forced to lodge in the woods, wilderness, or highways the night before, and then only to the next inn,” under a penalty of twenty shillings.

In 1727 it was found that notwithstanding the many good and wholesome laws made to prevent the “prophanation of the Lord’s day,” this same “prophanation” was on the increase, and so it was enacted that the penalty for the first offense should be thirty shillings, and for the second, three pounds, while the offender, presumably a “foraignor,” was to be put under a bond to observe the Sabbath day and keep it holy according to the ideas of the straight-laced Puritans.

Even this did not put an end to the good fathers’ troubles, for in 1760, “whereas, by reason of different constructions of the several laws now in force relating to the observation of the Lord’s day or Christain Sabbath, the said laws have not been duly executed, and notwithstanding the pious intention of the legislators, the Lord’s Day hath been greatly and frequently prophaned” all the laws relating to the observance thereof were repealed and a new chapter enacted, one section of which, and the only one in which we are now interested, was the same as the law of 1727, above quoted.

Thirty-one years later all these laws were again erased from the statute book and a new attempt was made to frame a law which should leave no loop-holes for foraignors or others, as follows:  “Whereas the observance of the Lord’s day is highly promotive of the welfare of a community by affording necessary seasons for relaxation from labor and the cares of business; for moral reflections and conversation on the duties of life, and the frequent errors of human conduct; for public and private worship of the Maker, Governor, and Judge of the world; and for those acts of charity which support and adorn a Christian society.  Be it enacted that no person shall travel on the Lord’s day except from necessity or charity, upon penalty of a sum not exceeding twenty shillings and not less than ten.”  Notice what an interesting and moral tone is given to the otherwise dry statute book by these sermonizing preambles which reflect so well the motives and aims of the men who moulded and formed the statute laws of the Commonwealth.