^ 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 | 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~, 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\ \ 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^ !: 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 H o a sr ft \3 \3 a . ff J Cfl) ' CO M & a ^ * * << K.SI -