صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

common right is necessarily an outrage upon the equal rights of citizens."

Judge Cooley says of the liquor traffic:

"The business of manufacturing and selling liquor is one that affects the public interests in many ways, and leads to many disorders. It has a tendency to increase pauperism and crime. It renders a large force of peace officers essential and it adds to the expenses of the courts, and of nearly all branches of civil administration." Is a business which does these things odious and against common right? If so, then, its legalization by a license is an outrage upon the equal rights of citizens.

CHAPTER XV THE SALOON LICENSE IS NEITHER A PROHIBITION, A RESTRICTON, A RESTRAINT NOR A

REGULATION OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC Those who insist that it is lawful to license the saloon abandon the declarations of the courts that a license is a delegated right, a mere permit, a derivative right and a conferred privilege, and assert that the license is a limitation upon a common right imposed by the state legislatures in the exercise of the police power of the state.

THE POLICE POWER While not claiming either the ability or the information requisite to a perfect definition of the police power, we may endeavor to convey some idea of its meaning. Civil government is merely the agency adopted by the people for the defense and protection of certain God-given rights,---not rights granted by the government. The police power is merely the power assumed by the people, in the foundation of the government, to accomplish these ends. Government is a protective institution; its function is to preserve and protect men in the enjoyment of the inherent and inalienable rights, with which Almighty God has endowed them. The police power, being one of the powers of the government is necessarily no more than a protective power; its function is to protect the pre-existing rights of men, not to create and grant to certain individuals new rights. It is the power to enforce the right and prohibit the wrong. It is the power to enforce the

chief end of organized government, which is the preservation and development of the good order, the peace, safety, health, morals and welfare of the people. It is the power to enforce the principles of the moral law.

In Boston Beer Co. vs. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 989, the United States Supreme Court, speaking of the police power, said: "Whatever differences of opinion may exist as to the extent and boundaries of the police power, and however difficult it may be to render a satisfactory definition of it, there seems to be no doubt that it does extend to the protection of the lives, health and property of the citizens, and to the preservation of good order and the public morals. The Legislature cannot, by any contract, divest itself of the power to provide for these objects. They belong emphatically to that class of objects which demand the application of the maxim, Salus populi suprema lex; and they are to be attained and provided for by such appropriate means as the legislative discretion may devise. That discretion can no more be bargained away than the power itself.”

So that the object of the police power is the protection of life, health, property, good order and morals, which is the very purpose of government itself.

Judge Cooley's definition of the police power is as follows: "The police power of the state, in a comprehensive sense, embraces the whole system of internal regulations by which the state seeks not only to preserve the public order, and to prevent offenses against the state, but also to establish for the intercourse of the citizens with citizens those rules of broader scope.

good manners and good neighborhood which are calculated to prevent a conflict of rights, and to insure to each the uninterrupted enjoyment of his own, so far as it is reasonably consistent with a like enjoyment of rights by others."

The police power can only be exercised rightfully within the limits of the constitution. It can have no

It is limited by the fundamental rights of men, announced in the Declaration of Independence and safe-guarded in the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.

Upon this question Judge Cooley says: “It must be within the range of legislative action to define the mode and manner in which one may so use his own as not to injure others, subject to the provisions of the constitutions, state and national, and to those great fundamental principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence.”

Chief Justice Fuller says: “The police power rests upon necessity and the right of self-protection, and fundamental rights can not be invaded under the mere guise of a police regulation.”

In Lawton vs. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, the United States Supreme Court said: “The extent and limits of what is known as the police power have been a fruitful subject of discussion in the appellate courts of nearly every state in the Union. It is universally conceded to include everything essential to the public safety, health and morals, and to justify the destruction of a house falling to decay or otherwise endangering the lives of passersby; the demolition of such as are in the path of a conflagration; the slaughter of diseased cattle; the destruction of decayed or unwholesome food; the prohibition of wooden buildings in cities; the regulation of railways and other means of public conveyance, and of interments in burial grounds; the restriction of objectionable trades to certain localities; the compulsory vaccination of children; the confinement of the insane or those afflicted with contagious diseases; the restraint of vagrants, beggars, and habitual drunkards; the suppression of obscene publications and houses of ill fame; and the prohibition of gambling houses and places where intoxicating liquors are sold.”

Emphasizing the doctrine that the police power can be exercised only within the limits of the constitution, the New York Court of Appeals said: “At the same time, it must be remembered that the constitution is the supreme law of the land; and that, when an act of the legislature properly comes before the court to be compared by it with the fundamental law, it is the duty of the court to declare the invalidity of the act if it violate any provision of that law.”

So that, in determining whether the saloon license statute is a lawful exercise of the police power, we must measure it by the fundamental, inherent and inalienable rights of men proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. All governmental action should be directed to their security. If the saloon license is a means of making these rights secure, it is in harmony with the purpose of government, but, if it is a means of authorizing an unlawful trade, it can not also be a security of fundamental rights.

And, when the courts say that the object of a saloon license is to confer a right which does not

[ocr errors]
« السابقةمتابعة »