« السابقةمتابعة »
-By express statute, in each one of the states, the saloon has been prohibited. By which is meant that each of the states makes it a criminal offense to sell intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes. All of the states, however, except Maine, Kansas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. have appended to their prohibitory statutes provisions authorizing the suspension, by means of a license, of the prohibitory or criminal provisions of these statutes. Any man that sells in any of the states, not named, without securing a license, that is, without securing immunity from the criminal statutes of such state, is a criminal, as much so, as if he were to commit larceny. So that a saloon license is merely a suspension of prohibition
The saloon keeper must always take the initiative; he must apply to the Board of County Commissioners for an order suspending the criminal statute as to him; an order suspending prohibition; an order adopting the saloon; an order granting him a license; and until he can secure such an order, the prohibition of the criminal statute prevails. There is no necessity of the adoption of prohibition; the crying demand is to stop the adoption of the saloon.
The truth of the matter is, that when God endowed man with the inalienable, natural rights of life, liberty and happiness. He decreed a prohibition against the saloon. When the American forefathers established the United States government to secure these rights, they ordained a prohibition against it, and each of the states has enacted a statutory prohibition against it. The difficulty is that each of these prohibitory statutes, except in seven states, has an appendage authorizing some officer or board, for a license fee, to suspend the prohibition of the statute, and, by that means, adopt the saloon. If this appendage shall be removed from these statutes, we will have complete statutory prohibition in each of the states. A successful operation for appendicitis is all that is required, and, if the constitution shall be interpreted and executed in accord with its express purposes and intents, it will very scientifically perform the operation.
So, the whole saloon problem is merely a question of license or no license. Without a license, there can be no protected saloon. Under such conditions, it is even a statutory outlaw. With the license, it is authorized to exist and is protected; it is a legalized outlaw. The license, whether high or low, is the tap root of the iniquity.
NO LEGISLATURE CAN BARGAIN AWAY THE PUB
LIC HEALTH AND THE PUBLIC MORALS
In State vs. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814, the United States Supreme Court says: “No legislature can bargain away the public health or the public morals. The people themselves can not do it, much less their servants.” If this can not be done, there must be a reason for it. The court gives the reason, when it says: “Government is organized with a view to their preservation, and can not divest itself of the power to provide for them."
They are among the inalienable rights, to secure which governments are instituted among men. Their security being the purpose of government, it necessarily follows that the state can not so divert the exercise of its functions as to expressly authorize their destruction. To do so, would most assuredly be a violation of the first section of Article fourteen of the United States Constitution. “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The pursuit of happiness has been held to be one of the privileges of a citizen, and happiness has been held to include health, peace, good order, safety and morality. Liberty, the courts say, means not only freedom from imprisonment and physical restraint but freedom to follow any of the lawful callings of life.
If the saloon were a lawful calling, it would be one of the privileges of a citizen, but the courts say that it is not, therefore, it is surely an unlawful calling. The courts further say that to directly authorize, by legislative enactment, the pursuit of an unlawful calling is an abridgement of the privileges of citizens, a denial of the equal protection of the laws, or rather a denial of the protection of equal laws. Lastly, they assert that the saloon keeper sells because the government has delegated to him the right to sell, and, in view of the cther propositions, it would seem to follow as an inevitable sequence that the delegation of the right is unlawful. The conclusion is absolutely unavoidable, unless the intrinsic character of the saloon may overthrow it, and we have discussed this question in almost every preceding chapter. So that the question may be fully foreclosed, we cite a few judicial estimates of the saloon:
Mugler vs. Kansas, 123 U. S. 205:
"It is not necessary, for the sake of justifying the state legislation, now under consideration, to array the appalling statistics of misery, pauperism, and crime which have their origin in the use or abuse of ardent spirits.
“For we cannot shut out of view the facts, within the knowledge of all, that the public health, the public morals, and the public safety, may be endangered by the general use of intoxicating drinks; nor the fact established by statistics accessible to everyone, that the idleness, disorder, pauperism, and