Blue Sunday

Last October 12, if one is to believe the vice-president of Boston's Retail Trade Board, hordes of starving Bay Staters crossed over into New Hampshire and Connecticut to buy the goods-nay, necessities-which their own state's laws forbade them to purchase. Storekeepers in Hartford had a field day (sales up 34%), while their Massachusetts counterparts sulked at home and watched the parade which (for the nonce) replaced the extravaganza of Filene's Bargain Basement. Presumably these scenes were repeated last Saturday, when once again the Puritan ethic got the better of the spirit of capitalism in Massachusetts.

For the Bay State's business enterprises, Blue Laws are a disaster. Columbus Day store closings represented a loss of $22 million worth of business; the Veterans Day figures have not yet been calculated, but are sure to be equally astronomical.

These business losses, more than any questions of morality or archaism, seem to be behind the current furor over Blue Laws. The trouble actually started last June, when the Supreme Court declared the laws constitutional. The 1960 Legislature added to the problem by putting holidays under statutes which previously restricted only Sunday trade. Gov. Volpe sought clarification by appointing a 20-man commission, which studied the question for five months, and this week submitted its report.

Alas for Gov. Volpe! He had hoped that the commission would present him with a neat bundle of bills which he could deliver to the Legislature at its next session. Instead he received three reports. The majority (ten men) recommended continuation of the present Sunday laws (under a new, non-religious name), with certain clarifications. The minority (nine men) agreed that the laws' name should be changed, but advocated a much more liberal set of statutes. The 20th member, the representative of a labor group, thought that both of the other reports were too extreme.

Among other reforms, the policies recommended by the nine-man minority would permit the operation of all service businesses on Sunday and would allow all sporting events to take place without a Sunday entertainment license.

Perhaps more significantly, a real majority of the commission (11 members) recommended that separate laws be enacted for Sundays and for holidays. This obviously makes sense if you consider Sunday to be the Lord's Day, and holidays to be only an arbitrary interruption of everyday life; but it seems inconsistent to separate the two when Sunday is no longer the Lord's Day, but only a "common day of rest."

Whether or not business losses are actually as large as the businessmen claim, Blue Laws are archaic. Not because Hartford merchants make money and Boston merchants don't, but because it is foolish to inconvenience people by a law based on sentiments which few of them share. It may not always be necessary to close a real estate deal on Sunday, but it is necessary often enough, and offensive to few enough people, that it should not be prohibited by law. As for holidays, they should, as the commission noted, be treated separately. Whatever their origins, holidays in this country will never be much more than an occasion for a good time; and if people have a better time shopping or watching football games than they would staying at home, the fact that others profit from these activities should not cause us to limit them.

Such feelings seem to be prevailing at the moment. Legislative modification of the Blue Laws is predicted for early 1962, though Volpe doubts that the Legislature will accept either the minority or the majority report of his commission. The President of the State Senate is confident that the problem will be solved by the beginning of the tourist season, which is obviously when it matters most since that's when money flows in greatest quantities. Fortunately, there are no holidays between Thanksgiving and Christmas.