In this act appears for the first time that “charity” which since then has truly “covered a multitude of sins,” while it has as often been a strong tower of defence to corporations clearly shown to have been careless of their obligations to the public.  One of the first cases to arise in which these words “necessity or charity” must be judicially construed was Commonwealth vs.  James Knox, 6 Mass., 76.

One Josiah Paine had contracted with the Post Master General of the United States to carry the public mail between Portland and Boston on each day of the week for two years from October 1, 1808, and Knox, his servant, was indicted for unlawfully travelling while carrying the mail with a stage carriage through the town of Newburyport on November 20, 1808, the same being Sabbath or Lord’s day, and the said travelling not being from necessity or charity.  Chief Justice Parsons in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, after showing the authority of Congress under the Constitution to establish post-offices and post-roads, and the consequent legality of Paine’s contract, the statutue of his State notwithstanding, says that “necessity ... cannot be understood as a physical necessity ... and when this travelling is necessary to execute a lawful contract it cannot be considered as unnecessary travelling, against the prohibition of the Statute.”  But fearing that this decision may open too wide the gate to Sabbath breakers the Chief Justice hastens to add:  “But let it be remembered that our opinion does not protect travellers in the stage coach, or the carrier of the mail in driving about any town to discharge or to receive passengers; and much less in blowing his horn to the disturbance of serious people either at public worship or in their own houses.  The carrier may proceed with the mail on the Lord’s day to the post-office; he may go to any public house to refresh himself and his horses; and he may take the mail from the post-office and proceed on his route. Any other liberties on the Lord’s day our opinion does not warrant.”

The report naively says, that after this opinion the Attorney General entered a nolle proscqui.

In Pearce vs.  Atwood, 13 Mass., 324, a case which arose in 1816 and which attracted a great deal of notice at the time, Chief Justice Parker says:  “It is not necessary to resort to the laws promulgated by Moses, in order to prove that the Christian Sabbath ought to be observed by Christians, as a day of holy rest and religious worship; and if it were it would be difficult to make out the point contended for from that source;” and then goes into a long disquisition upon the Mosaic law and the precepts of the Saviour and finally says that “cases often arise in which it will be both innocent and laudable for the most exemplary citizen to travel on Sunday.  Suppose him suddenly called to visit a child, or other near relative, in a distant town laboring under a dangerous illness; or suppose him to be a physician; or suppose a man’s whole fortune and the future comfort of his family to depend upon his being at a remote place early on Monday morning, he not having known the necessity until Saturday evening; these are all cases which would generally be considered as justifying the act of travelling.”  Certainly a somewhat broader view than that taken by the Court seven years earlier.