Such cases have recently been seen in many places in this and other states, but particularly so in Newark, N. J., where the enforcement of such an old act forbidding the sale of beer and other beverages on Sunday caused a reaction of unexpected violence, and very characteristic of the profound change that has already taken place in the popular conception of the day. The circumstances in brief were as follows: A considerable number of prohibitionists had organized under the name of the Law and Order Association for the purpose of enforcing the Sunday law and preventing the licensing of bar rooms. Numerous prosecutions were made and carried through to conviction under the old state law after having failed in the city police courts. Thereupon the Citizens’ Protective Association was formed and in September, 1879, a demonstration was made by a great procession, and the adoption of resolutions calling for a repeal of the law which, after lying idle so long, had suddenly been revived to the great injury of an established business, and with manifest injustice to a large number of peaceable citizens who conceived their rights to be interfered with, inasmuch as a law long inoperative must practically be regarded as a dead letter and ignored by those who, if they had supposed it to possess vital power, would have removed from its jurisdiction or taken pains never to come within it. The procession numbered ten or twelve thousand and great enthusiasm was displayed, not only in the ranks, but by residents all along the line of march. The matter was evidently one which took a deep hold on the feelings of the community and none the less because of a common feeling that they had been unfairly treated by the appeal to a law not in harmony with the spirit of the times or of abstract justice. A crowd is very apt to be wrong and it is easy to stir up the people, but here the crowd had more reason on its side than it was itself aware of, reason founded on history, and making the law that had been enforced an unwarrantable attack on personal liberty. They felt that it was so, though few probably would have been able to give a clear explanation of the feeling or trace its justification by the facts. As for enthusiasm, we are told that it needed no stimulus and can easily believe it to have been so, for aside from the more abstract and philosophical justice of their complaint, there was the immediate smart felt by men who lose the day of recreation to which they have looked forward all the week, or find that they are to suffer a pecuniary loss and that their occupation is not only checked but stigmatized. The matter made a great excitement and called out many bitter paragraphs on both sides, but chiefly among the more narrow-minded and pharisaical of so-called religious press. We have no space or disposition to go into the details of their criticism, even for the sake of illustrating how far misrepresentation and innuendo may be made to stand in place