^ I Ml ?l i J? umi ilL t-?-ll?>' ?
One Gallon a 1
Befi
Constitutionality of
General Peeples and
eral Dominick in thi
kaustive Review <
of All the Stai
Bearing <
(Continued
THViAra 10 co met v>i
JL11V.1V~ 1 .? C^V-/ IllUVil | UOL 11
liquor question, and there ai
touching the question, that
argument of Attorney Gene
General Dominick as subm
Thursday of last week in t
tionality of the gallon-a-moi
ment and covers the legislat
ject. In fact there is a pr
country just now and we fc
reading just at this time.
exerted with the effect of
such commcrcc."
(d.) In IIolden r. lit
validity of a statute of Utah,
of workmen in unden^rotuK
+ ?. r.,hnm/r ,M- t~\ V ?
HUJI Ul iV-IilUUw KJI vu.^ v;i
statute was held to be a val
the State.
Mr. Justice Brown, speal
"The right of contract, I"
limitations which the State
cise of its police power. V
governments, it has cloubtlef
plication during the past ce
crease in occupations whic
mental to the health of em
caution for their well-bein
adjacent property.
* * * 2
. xi.:. :?
wiuic mis puwei is net
government, it was, prior t<
but sparingly used in this (
purely an agricultural peopl
tection of a particular class cl
ployments, such as lotteries
which were then considered
wider the ban of public opi)
prohibited or made subjec
The power to do this has
r Court.''
In the same case, it was
police power may be protc
and that the State has an
individual:
"But the fact that both
petent to contract does not i
power to interfere where i
equality, or where the publi
the contract shall be protects
retains an interest in his zee
The whole is no greater tin
when the individual health,
71 cgleetcd, the State must s
3?THE RE A L PURPOSE OF PF
, VENT PERSON
It seems strange at this
the State and National Gov<
right to possess and recei\
drink the same in unlimited
case, it is diffitult to see hov
have ever been sustained, s:
dencv to reduce or prevent
and it is the purpose of all
the prevention of the consi
pose has found repeated ex]
In the early case of Line*
find the following statemem
"Though the act of our
prevent the traffic in intox
drinking; yet the primary oi
vent ion of intemperance, p(
hibition of the traffic is bh
object and end of the law is l
that the use of intoxicating
useless, and intemperance
use, and that intemperance
sound morals and productive
to us, that a law designed I
clearly fall within the class
lations. The legislature in
less supposed, that the trc
liquors went hand in hand,
twin sisters, that they zl'eri
they would also die to get he
the other would also fall f<
intoxicating liquor tends to ;
intemperance is a gangrene,
of the bodv politic, and to pi
whether the law in question
gate the evils supposed to fl<
indirectly from the traffic
tions to be settled by the lav
in this respect is final, and
clear the Legislature assume
in question; and, in our pa
Month Law
ire Supreme Courtj
j
Law Argued by Attorney
i
Assistant Attorney Gen2
Supreme Court?An Exthe
Prohibition Law
[es and Cities Cases
i
m the Subject,
I
From Last Issue.)
o\v in the limelight in regard to the
*e several bills before the legislature
we have decided to print in full the
ral Pceples and Assistant Attorney
itted before the supreme court on j
he case pertaining to the constituntli
law. It is an exhaustive arguion
of other states on the same sub-!
ohibition wave sweeping over the!
:el that this argument will be good
i
i
I
excluding particular articles {row.
I
7rdy, 169 So. 3^3, involving, the |
limiting the period of employment j
i mines, or in the smelting, reduc- |
metals, to eight hours a day, the
id exercise of the police power ot;
I
|
<ing for the Court, said:
lowever. is itself subject to certain j
may lawfully impose in the exer- j
V hile this power is inherent in all j
>s been greatlv expanded in its ap- i
ntury, owing to the enormous in- j
h are dangerous or so far detriployees
as to demand special preg
and protection, or the safety of
* sjs %
1.. ifnrm nf '
cOScliliy 11I11V.X V. IIL III VVV1 V xviin ,
d the adoption of the Constitution,!
rountry. As we were then almost1
e, the occasion for any special prolid
not exist. Certain profitable em- j
and the sale of intoxicating liquors, j
to be legitimate, have since fallen
nurJ nvr> nnrci niih pr nlfn crpfhrr !
U/iU u r t UVIV Vitt V^V.r.v j
7 to stringent police regulations, j
been repeatedly affirmed by this,
I
shown that an individual under the j
jcted bv the States from himself, I
*
interest in the well-being- of the
parties are of full age and com
necessarily deprive the State of the j
:he parties do not stand upon an j
c health demands that one party to i
:d against himself. The State still j
'Ifare, however reckless he may be. j
in the sum of all of the parts, and j
, safety or welfare is saeriiied, o>' j
lifter/'
iOHIBITION LEGISLATION IS TO PRE-j
:AL USE OF LIOUOR.
late day to hear a claim made that
^rnments guarantee to a citizen the
;e liquor for personal use and to
[ quantities. If such had been the!
v any sort of prohibitory law could
ince all of them have a direct tenthe
use of intoxicating beverages,
of them to promote temperance by
* - - r . a T1.:?
impuon 01 mioxicaius. nib piupression
in adjudged cases.
oln i'. Smith, 27 Vermont, 328, we
t:
Legislature is entitled an act 'to
icating liquors for the purpose of
bjcct and end of the law is the prcmperism
and crime; and the prort
the medium through 'which the
lo be attained. If it be once granted j
(r liquors as a drink is worse than j
a legitimate consequence of such
is an evil, injurious to health and
e of pauperism and crime; it seems
:o prevent such consequences must
r ? 1 1 1? _
oi laws, aenominaieci ponce regupassing
the law in question, doubtiffic
and drinking of intoxicating
and that they were even more than
? not only bom together, but that
r, and that by cutting off the one,
- * - .1 i*i _ r
mtn it. wnetner ine cirinKing or
produce intemperance, and whether
tending to corrupt the moral health
oduce misery and lamentation; and
is well calculated to cut off, or miti3w
directly from intemperance, and
nit iiii1-1 /-/t#iu rr 1iminrc- u'pro
Ill/ ?? Vi v VJ^MVW
/ -making power; and their decision
[ not to be reviewed by us. It is
:d all this, in the passage of the law
ssing upon its validity, we are not
to assume the contrary."
hi Mark State. 159 Ala. 7
prohibitory statutes AI'iyiieM, J
"'iT.e main reject and purp
mav l)c restricted, and some mo'
others: but the main ol)ject a
Justice Somerville in Carl's ease
A. 308, is to 'promote temper:
The mode adopted to accompli
the sale, the giving away, or o
liquors. The evil to be remei
liquors as a beverage, rather t
cines and article of toilet, or
! object of the law in this partic
j in its interpretation.'"
1 II1> ULlClclliK- ir> J v~<uin 111
I Alabama in Southern Express
i Rep. 652.
In State r. Phillips (Mis?.
' said:
"If the object of prohibit u
Honors is not to prevent, as far <
liquors, then it is difficult to j
sale. Of course the typical pul
there would be no practical riifi
latinpf the saloon as to minimize
the saloon, except the evils wh
i . T : u :
intoxicant ncveiago. n n i
morals, welfare, and peace of t
to drink alcoholic liquors, it wi
have no interest in prohibiting t
and cm! of prohibition it to h
beverage. This ultimate end is
when the preponderant and pre
believes that the public weifar
way will be found to accomplish
In JVcst Virginia z'. Adam,
same thought is thus expressed:
"In trying to comprehend tl:
U111UI1 MdlUll'>, II i> i j 11 j fy ji Lciu i
end sought in prohibition legisl
restriction of the mere sale of
of fheir consumption as a bci'cr
usual and obvious means by w
the legislation is more often dii
is upon the recognized evil oi
beverage that the right of a Stc
to enact prohibitive legislation ;;
it can not be denied that the
against acts which would consti
against others acts within its
common carriers, which tend t
policy by preventing the consun
(Maine.) "It is common Is
intrvvirntino* lirmnr-; as a bcvo.ra.'
is the mischief sought to be pre
prohibition of the sale and ke
liquors is only a means. The ei
or at least the diminution of the
by the people of the State. T1
including the statute in questioi
that end, so far as the languag
fairly allows.''
Maine v. Bass. Pub. Co. ()
(XS) 495, 496.
(California.) "It can not
the great ultimate object of all
toxicating liquors is obviously 1
to reduce to the lowest limit the
of such liquors as beverages, ai
* * * Indeed, it is, as befoi
tutional rights of the Legislate
power of the State, to establish
to remove every temptation to
under any circumstances
Golden & Co. v. Justice s Co
In Crowley v. Christ en sen, i
if injury followed the'use of liqi
tarily inflicted and confined to 1
the ^ale should be without res
what a man shall drink, eqiia'
not properly a matter for legi<
accept the suggestion as sound,
the Court, saying:
"There is in this position a
does not exist, that when the 1
injuries are confined to the pai
ic frnp fl.rct -folk unrm him in I
dermines; in his morals, whicl
abasement which it creates. ]
business and waste of propert
it affects those who are immec
pendent upon him."
The case of Mugler v. Rai
fatal to the claim that under 1
consumption of liquors by a cit:
ence. It was contended in the
guaranteed to a citizen by the coi
persons against being deprive<
without due process of law, is 1
one's own use either food or dri
/">f +Via rnrritntinp tllf
UUV.H1I1V.O \j x 111^
appetites, habits, dress, food an.
tem of government, based upo:
gence of the citizen, does not c
to his conduct to others,-leavin
that only affects himself.
But this contention found n
declared that if a State deems
manufacture and sale, within he
for other than medical, scientifi<
to be necessary to the peace and
can not override the wiH of 1
Hence, it was declared that if
i. speaking <>f local and general
n si ice, said :
ose of all is the same. Some
re extensive and exclusive than
' _ii .?:.i iv,.
nu purpose 01 <111. a> >ai<i i>\
\ Nj Ala. C) South, t i4 L. R.
luce and prevent drunkenness,
h this end is the prevention of
ther disposition of intoxicating
lied is the use of intoxicating
han as an ingredient of medi
for culinary purposes, and the
:ular must not be lost sight of
ed by the Supreme Court of
Co. 7\ Whittle (Ala.), 69 ;So.
), (>7 So. Rep. 651, the Court
vi of the sate of intoxicating
as may be. the drinking of such
nstify the laws prohibiting the
iWc saloon is demoralizing, but
faculties in the way of so regnal!
of the evils which flow from
ich flow from the drinking of
> IIV'L tl illV-IUl^V LV/ CUV. 1KUIU.,
he public, for men and women
mid seem that the public could
he sale. The ultimate purpose
rez'ent the use of liquor as a
approaching step by step, and
Tailing morality of the nation
c demands the final step, the
the end."
:? Ex. Co., 219 Fed. 704. the
ic legislative purpose in prohito
remember that the ultimate
ation is not the prevention or
intoxicants, but the prevention
'age. The sale being- the most
hich drinking is accomplished,
ected against the sale. But it
: individual consumption as a
ite under its nolice power rests
uid in the exercise of that right
State may legislate not only
tnte a sale at common law, but
borders, such as deliveries by
o defeat or weaken its public
lption of liquor as a beverage/'
:nowledge that it is the use of
that is deemed harmful, and
vented by the legislation. The
eping for sale of intoxicating
nd sought for is the prevention,
drinking of intoxicating liquors
le legislation upon the subject.
V. shall be construed to further
e, without bending- either way.
Je.), 71 Atl, 894, 20 L. R. A.
for a moment be doubted that
legislation on the subject of intrue
of the statute in question,
individual use and consumption
id thus diminish intemperance.
*e intimated, within the constire
in the exercise of the police
any regulation which may tend
use intoxicants as barrages
urt (Cal.), T40 Pac. 49.
37 U. S. 87, it Wcis urged, that
lors as a beverage, it was volu:he
party offending; and hence
itriction, upon the theory that
lly with what he shall eat, is
slation; but the Court did not
Mr. Justice Field, speaking for
n assumption of a fact which
iquors are taken in excess the
rty offending. The injury, it
,iis health, which the habit un1
it weakens; and in the self3ut,
as it leads to neglect of
v and eeneral demoralization,
liately connected with and delsas,
123 U. S. 623, is clearly
the police power, the use and
izen may not find any interferit
case, that among the rights
istitutional provision protecting
\ of life, liberty, or property
the right of manufacturing for
nk; that while according to the
: State may control the tastes,
M Hrinli- of thp npnnle. our svs
11 * """ "*v I 1?1 J
n the individuality and intelli:laim
to control him, except as
g him the sole judge as to all
0 favor with the Court, which
the absolute prohibition of the
:r limits, of intoxicating liquors
:, and manufectyniig.
1 security of society, the Gourts
the people as thus expressed.
in the judgment ot the Legis
Mature, the manufacture <-r int*?xic
\
own use. as a beveraqy, would t
1 defeat, the effort to guard th;- <
'attending the excessive use or >i
Courts, upon their view as to w!
'community, to disregard the legi
' question.
Xow if the end and object of
I the consumption of intoxicating
restrict the consumption thereof, ;
.is the use of intoxicating liquors
i and purpose be a proper one, w
' if in its judgment it is proper a
directly declare it shall be unlav
property in. or to own or possess
a State act l>y indirection ? .May i
| what it is right to accomplish inclii
j tion in such a case to the genen
| complished indirectly, may be a<
It results from the authorities
: Constitution contains no guaranty
' the United States, that he must
!
! intoxicating liquor tor personal t
' Amendment is concerned: nor 1;
| the "commerce clause" since the
| .State law would be infringed by
j liquor for personal use.
| 4.?i:\Thvr of i'oi.ick powkr ri
liquors, furtttei;
If a State has the ri j:t t >
j intoxicating liquor by a citizen t
State in the Union ha?, or may n
| if all the States would pass laws
j by a citizen of intoxicating liquo
j hibit the sale of such liquors wi
! for his own use. what would becc
a citizen to secure liquor for his
become of such right, if Congn
, settled jjower to exclude all into
state shipment? Or. what would
j Federal Government should pro)
| toxicating liquors into this count
prohibited its manufacture?
If a citizen of a State has tlu
liquors for his own use in any qu
tities, it would seem to follow he :
| to manufacture such liquor for hi
| of his own labor, and yet it is settl
Is the supposed constitutiona
j liquor to be dependent upon the f
iState, or the state of legislation
Are the laws of a State prohi
| toxicating liquors by a citizen for
j such liquors in a State for the us
. tional and valid only so long as
! securing by the citizen of intoxica
| in the United States or some for*
If a person has a constitutioi
| eating liquors for his personal 11
i have the constitutional right to
| personal use, and yet it is settlec
i tiAnal no-lit to cr>11 intnvirntnicr lim
uu.icu d ---! ;
of a citizen of a State, or of a citi
The person who sells liquor t
the purchaser's own use. and yet
i deprive the latter of the right to
I one to sell liquor to him. It \
1 that if a citizen mav not manufa
i
' use, then he has not the constiti
: receive such liquors for his c\v:
I purchase or receiving is a violati
j selling or delivering such liquor.
Furthermore, the Court, in M
provision broad enough to prohit
for personal use. since a contrary
the entire scheme of prohibition
' Kansas. Tho meaning was that :
j nized, the consumption of liquors
since.large stocks would be mam
of the need of them for personal
an instrument of defeating the law
i .
To accomplish the admittedly
hibiting the traffic in liquors, it is
its police power, to have the rigl
ments even for personal use. Th
| relation to the end to be accomplis
; in principle between the denial c
and a denial of the right to impoi
This line of reasoning was adc
i (former Chief Justice of Oregon^
I Rail & Nav. Co.. 210 Fed. Rep.
The same principle was laid dc
Alabama in Southern Express Co
; and approved and reaffirmed by 1
, Carolina in Glenn v. Southern E.\
1915, not yet reported.
The principle for which we ar<
power was announced at an earl
33 Mo. 558, 54 Am. 639, where :
"The State, by its legislative
pectively, may determine that ar
health or morals shall not coi
jurisdiction.
"It may come to the conclusior
used as a beverage, are producti
and evils, to the people, both in
associate relations; that the least
pose is injurious and suited to pr<
ous injury to the comfort, moral
mon use of them for such a purp
productiveness gf labor; to injure
the people additional and unnec
waste of time and of property; t<
fPoS3255 la Nei
atin^ !:<jiTors for the maker's!
end to cripple, it it did not I
:oj]inuiMity against the evils j
icli honors, it is not for the j
i
'.at is host an 1 safest for the j
slative determination of that j
i
tin's legislation is to prevent j
liquors as a beverage or to j
and if the evil to be remedied '
1 ... 1 1 :
as a neveras^e, ar.u ifii> eim j
liy may not the Legislature,i
nd necessary, so to proceed, !
vfill for a citizen to acquire !
intoxicating liquors? Must j
lot a State accomplish directly
ectly ? Why make an excepi\
rule that what may be accomplished
directly.
above cited that the Federal
to a citizen of a State or of
- ? . 1 .
somewhere be abie to ODiain
lse, so far as the Fourteenth
las he any such right under
Webb-Kenyon Act, if a valid
the receipt or possession oi
i
"SI'KCTI XCi I'KRSOXAL USE OF
i CONSIDERED.prohibit
ihe manufacture of
'or hi:: own use, every other
ave, the same right. Hence, |
prohibiting- the manufacture i
rs for hi> own use, and prothin
its borders to a citizen
>me of the supposed right of
own use? Or. what would
?ss should exercise its wellxicating
liquors from inter;
become of his right, if the
libit the importation of in:ry,
after all the States had
1 right to obtain intoxicating
antity, or in unlimited quanshould
at least have the right
s own use from the products
ed he has not such right.
1 right of a citizen to have
>tate of legislation in another
by Congress?
t1-?A manftfnptiirp r>t in
Ull'"8 t"v' ~ ?
his own use, and the sale of
;e of the purchaser, constitua
way is left open for the
ting liquors elsewhere, either
sign country?
rial right to purchase intoxise,
the seller would seem to
sell it for such purchaser's
1 that no one has a constitu
tors. Such a right is not one
zen of the United States,
o a purchaser may sell it for
: the State has the power to
purchase, by prohibiting anyvould
seem, therefore, clear
.cture liquor for his personal
utional right to purchase or
ii use, especially when such
r>n of the law by the person
uglcr v. Kansas, sustained a
>it the manufacture of liquor
r ruling might have defeated
as embodied in the laws of
if such privilege were recogwould
be but little restricted,
.ifactured under the pretense
use, and then could be made
against sale.
valid main purpose of pronecessary
for a State, under
it to control interstate shipis
is a step which has a fair
;hed. What is the difference
)f the right to manufacture,
rt?
>pted by District judge Bean,
), in U. S., v. Oregon-Wash.
>wn by the Supreme Court ol
. v. Whittle, 69 So. Rep. 652,
:he Supreme Court of North
\ Co., decided December 1st,
e contending under the police
v date, in Preston v. Drew,
Shepley, C. J., said:
enactments, operating prosticles
injurious to the public
istitute property within its
i that spirituous liquors, when
ve of a great variety 01 ills
their individual and in their
use of them for such a purxluce,
by a greater use, seris
and health; that the com>ose
operates to diminish the
; the health; to impose upon
essary burdens; to produce
> introduce disorder and dis?
Isette..)
>
f3*"
>
e 3s
<1 *
fnatf
! 3 M
!>1 ^
gl P> .
. 1 s?*?
I *-3 0
'5* 8
8 O
?
\y
9\
> r
m i'
1+
C ^ .
I &
(D
I J g
<SJ P
a. cl
? 0
ft 3
B' 5
01 55* >
H
o a
sr ft
\3
\3
a .
ff J
Cfl) '
CO
M &
a
^ * *
<<
K.SI -