صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني


crime existing in the country, are, in some degree at least, traceable to this evil."

Thurlow vs. Commonwealth, 5 Howard, 504:

"The train of evils which marks the progress of intemperance is too obvious to require comment. It brings with it degradation of character, impairs the moral and physical energies, wastes the health, increases the number of paupers, and criminals, undermines the morals and sinks its victims to the lowest depths of vice and profligacy.”

In Goddard vs. President, 15 Ill. 589, the Supreme Court of Illinois says:

"It is not sufficient to say that liquors are property, and their sale is as much secured as that of any other property. Their sale for use as a common beverage and tippling is hurtful and injurious to the public morals, good order, and well-being of society. Playing cards and other gaming instruments, and obscene books, prints and pictures are likewise property; and the same right of sale might as justly be claimed; yet no complaint is made that even the importation as well as the sale is forbidden. When we defend the sale of liquors for the purpose of tippling we surely draw our arguments from our appetites, and not our reason, observation and experience. We may carefully protect the public morals, and the profligate from the evils of gaming, horse-racing, cock-fighting; from the obscenity of prints and pictures; from horses and exhibitions of mountebanks and rope-dancers; from the offensive smell of useful trades and hog-pens; from the manufacture and exhibition of fire-works and squibs; from rogues, idlers, vagabonds, and vagrants, and from dangers of pestilence, contagion and gunpowder, yet according to the doctrine contended for, this right to vend a slow and sure poison as a common beverage must remain intact and not amenable to police regulations for its suppression, although all the other evils together will not destroy .a tithe of the number of human lives, nor produce more moral degradation, or suffering, wretchedness, and misery in the social relations of society; or pauperism, vagrancy and crime in the political community, or pecuniary destitution of individuals and families, than will the constitutionally protected right of destroying our neighbors and fellows for the selfish end of our own individual private gain. I am utterly incapable of so regarding it as above all the claims and interests of society, the peace and welfare of families, and especially above the police powers of government; and shall never be brought to acknowledge the sacredness and inviolability of its rights, until I shall be able to forget all that I have seen, observed, known and experienced of its destructiveness of all that is estimable upon earth. Viewing the great and irreparable mischief growing out of this practice, I am not prepared to say that another nuisance may not be added to the list; and that under the police powers society may find protection from its blighting curse."

Transposing this statement slightly, it declares that intoxicating liquor is a slow and sure poison, whose sale for beverage purposes can only be defended by men's appetites, and not by reason, observation or experience; that gambling, horseracing, cock-fighting, obscenity, rope-dancers,

rogues, idlers, vagabonds, vagrants, pestilence, contagion and gunpowder will not destroy one-tenth of the lives that will the saloon, nor produce, socially, so much moral degradation, suffering, wretchedness and misery, or as much pauperism, vagrancy and crime as the saloon, nor as much pecuniary destitution as the saloon.

Hence, it seems very clear that the inherent character of the saloon and its natural effects surely bring it within the condemnation of the law. If the object of a saloon license be to confer a right that does not exist without the license, as declared by the Supreme Court of Michigan, then it would follow, as surely as the night follows the day, that to grant the license is to bargain away, for the license fee, life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

If then, there can be any escape from this conclusion, some other subterfuge must be invented and the dispensers of this slow and sure poison are equal to the emergencies of the case and come forward with two means of escape. First—They say that a saloon license is a prohibition, a restriction, a restraint and a regulation of the liquor traffic, imposed upon it by the legislature in the exercise of the police power of the state. Second-Because the saloon is not specifically condemned, that is, by name, in the constitution, it should be held to be constitutional and law ful.


THE SALOON A LEGALIZED INSTITUTION "The licensed saloon keeper does not sell liquor by reason of an inalienable right, inherent in citizenship, but because the government has delegated to him the exercise of such rights."

If this expression were original with the writer, some brewery lawyer or subsidized newspaper editor would probably denounce it as the fancied dream of a freak, but it is the declaration of the Supreme Court of South Carolina in State vs. Aiken, 42 S. C. 231. If the statement be correct, it surely follows that the saloon is legalized. Legalize, of course, means to give legal sanction to that which was previously illegal or unlawful.

The Supreme Court of Indiana has five times said: "A saloon license is a mere permit.” The Indiana Appellate Court has used the same expression. So has the Court of Appeals of New York, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts and the Supreme Courts of several other states. The Supreme Court of Indiana has also said: "The privilege of keeping a saloon is a derivative right, springing alone from the provisions of the license statute."

In three other cases, speaking of a saloon license, the Supreme Court of Indiana, has said: “It is the license itself, properly procured, that confers the right to retail under the statute, and, until it is issued, no such right is conferred.” In two different saloon license cases, the Supreme Court of Ohio has said: "A license is a permission, granted by

« السابقةمتابعة »