the courts evade it by declaring that it is the exclusive province of state legislatures to determine what is an abridgment of the privileges of citizens and to determine whether its acts deny to the people the equal protection of the laws. This method of evasion is not, however, employed generally, but only to avoid the inevitable conclusion that must follow from the application of universally acknowledged legal principles to the saloon, as the courts themselves have estimated the institution. The limitations of the fourteenth amendment, being general, it must surely follow that the authority is confided to the courts to determine whether a particular enactment has the effect to abridge the privileges of citizens or to deny the equal protection of the laws. Upon this point, the Supreme Court of the United States has said: "Whether or not a state law will have the effect to authorize an abridgment of the privileges of citizens or will deny to persons the equal protection of the laws is not a question, subject to legislative determination, but is necessarily and essentially a judicial question, so that the courts alone are the arbiters of constitutional questions." Upon the same question, in McKinster vs. Sager, 163 Ind. 671, the Supreme Court of Indiana said: "If there is one occasion more than another which calls upon a court to vindicate the fundamental law, it is upon the complaint of a suitor who shows that there has been an attempt by hostile and discriminative legislation to bar his right to the ultimate process of the court, for such enactments strike at the very root of justice. "There is, and always will be, in every representative government, a struggle going on between the various interests of society with reference to legislation. This but evinces the necessity for the existence of a co-ordinate department of government, also acting under the responsibility of an oath, to determine, when called on to enforce legislation, whether it operates unequally." And, in determining, what is meant by "privileges of citizens," the United States Supreme Court says: "They are the rights, which are fundamental, and belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governments; they are those inherent and inalienable rights, not granted or conferred by governmental decrees, but by the endowment of God; they are those rights, which, to secure and make safe, not to grant, free governments were established among men; they are those rights so graphically proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and as clearly recognized in the preamble to the United States Constitution." And it would clearly do no violence to add to this, "and those rights enumerated in the preamble and bills of rights of state constitutions." These rights, so announced and specified, are life, liberty, happiness, justice, domestic tranquility, the common defense, the general welfare, the blessings of liberty, public order, moral and intellectual improvement, the peace and safety of citizens. So that, if the saloon be a violation of these fundamental rights, it can not be regarded as lawful merely on the basis of toleration. And, if, in its natural state, it be an invasion of these rights, it can not be made lawful, by express permission, without abridging the privileges of citizens or denying the equal protection of the laws, for, in the language of the Supreme Court of Iowa: "No legislature has arbitrary and capricious powers, and no legislature can rightfully exercise the power that the people have assigned it, except for the purpose of their safety, which involves the suppression, not the protection, of evils threatening the subversion. of the peace, comforts, and good morals of the people, and their quiet and full enjoyment of. property." The innate character of the saloon and its effects upon society must determine whether it is lawful on the basis of toleration, and, if not, whether it can be made lawful by express permission. The writer need not express any personal opinion of the saloon.. We may accept the estimate, placed upon it by Supreme Courts, which are abundantly sufficient for the purposes of this discussion. In Pearson vs. International Distillery, 72 Iowa 348, the court said: "The evils flowing from intoxicating liquors arise wholly from its use, as a beverage. But this use is wide spread, reaching all classes of the people, and both sexes, and every age. is wholly exempt therefrom. all the evils arising from the liquors need not be attempted. and affect the people collectively and individually. No condition of life Idleness, poverty, pauperism, crime, insanity, disease, and the destruction of human life, follow indulgence in the habit of using intoxicating drinks. Millions of our fellow-countrymen are addicted to this habit, and of these, millions become drunkards. Homes are broken up, and domestic peace is destroyed by drunkenness. The prisons, almshouses, and institutions for the care of orphanage, insanity, and affliction, are largely filled by the vice. These are evils, but not all of the evils, of the alcohol habit, affecting the social condition of the people, and their comfort and good morals. But other evils attending the use of intoxicating beverages affect the state and its government. It is the prolific source of crime, pauperism, and insanity, and thereby entails taxation to defray the expenses of the conviction and punishment of criminals, and the support of almshouses, asylums, and hospitals. It deteriorates mentally and physically the human stock, rendering its victims, as well as their progeny, less capable of bearing arms in defense of their country, and of discharging other duties of the citizens. Soldiers are unfitted for duty by it, and thereby battles have been lost, and the liberty of nations, if not lost, has been imperiled. Tradition perpetuates, if history does not fully record, the evils which have flowed from the alcohol habit of officers and soldiers in our armies. Washington struggled with difficulties occasioned by it, and other commanders of later days have had a like experience, while patriotic soldiers have suffered on account of inebriety of officers in all branches of the military service. The appetite for strong drink, possessed by so many of our countrymen, demands constant gratification, and the expenditure therefor of enormous sums of money, thus creating a business the keeping of saloons and dram-shops, in which are employed an immense number of men. Their business, and their relations with the idle. and dangerous classes of society, give them great influence in public affairs. The municipal governments of the cities, often burdened with debts, and robbed by unfaithful and mercenary officers, in all departments, give evidence of the direction in which this influence is exerted. Thinking men of this day largely concur in the opinion that the influence of the saloon, and the idleness and vice of the multitude of its clientage, united, constitute the great peril of American institutions. We think none will deny that nothing but evil flows from this source. "The power to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors has been exercised by many states, and traffic therein with Indians has been prohibited by statutes of the United States, and of this and other states. The preservation of order in the Indian tribes, and peace between them and the frontier settlers, the prevention of famine and disease, and the preservation of the very existence of these savages, are the humane objects of these statutes. "The same purpose demands legislation to protect the inebriates among our own countrymen, probably equalling in number all the Indian tribes, from the destructive consequences of the gratification of their appetites for strong drink, which is no less. uncontrollable in them than in the Indians. Surely, humanity and patriotism demand that the same pro |