صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

adopted to preserve and protect it; he believes that a menace to society is a natural right and that it is the object of the constitution and the common law to secure that right; he believes that the propagation of crime is a natural right and that, to the end. that its propagation might ever continue, the constitution and the common law were established; he believes that the dispensation of untold misery and suffering is a natural right and that it is the purpose of the constitution and common law to safeguard the right to dispense agony and sorrow.

On the other hand, it is the position of the writer, that an evil without one redeeming feature is a natural wrong and that it is the purpose of the constitution and the common law to prevent and prohibit it; that that which is a nuisance in any habitation fit to reside in is a natural wrong and that it is the purpose of the constitution and the common law to abate it; that a menace to society is a natural wrong and that it is the purpose of the constitution to prevent and prohibit it; that the propagation of crime is a natural wrong and that it is the purpose of the constitution and the common law to destroy it; that the dispensation of misery and suffering in any degree is a natural wrong and that it is the purpose of the constitution and the common law to alleviate misery and suffering. As between the two positions, we invite the intelligent reader to take his choice.

The theory that the equality of rights is the basis of civil government is no new doctrine. The revo

lutionary fathers announced and immortalized it in the Declaration of Independence, when they asserted that all men are created equal, endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that to secure these rights governments were instituted among men. Government is, then, in a sense, an institution of God, designed and intended to preserve and protect the equality of the rights of men, or, putting it in other words, to enforce the natural or moral law. But the moral law can be enforced upon its own standard only. Not on some other standard.

If this be true, the people, in the administration of civil government, have no choice between right and wrong. God has made the choice for them and no policy of civil government can be harmonized with the purpose of organized society, unless it be directed to the enforcement of the right upon one hand, and to the prohibition of the wrong upon the other.

In Gulf, etc. R. Co. vs. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, the United States Supreme Court, speaking by Justice Brewer, said: "The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases ref

men

everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed.

"Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed.” Public sentiment does even more than this, because it makes statutes possible of enactment and decisions possible of rendition, and this means that the application of constitutional and common law standards depends upon the state of the public mind.

CHAPTER VII

THE SALOON JUDICIALLY DECLARED TO BE A

PUBLIC MENACE

In the preceding chapters, we have attempted to make it very clear that, while some courts have declared that the saloon has the same legal basis as the ordinary and useful avocations of life, others have denied the soundness of such a position. And even the courts that have said that the saloon and ordinary and useful mercantile pursuits have the same legal basis, have announced unquestioned legal principles, which, when applied to their own estimate of the saloon, unequivocally establish the proposition that the saloon and the ordinary and useful occupations of life stand upon entirely different legal bases. For instance, the Supreme Court of Indiana has said that the saloon is dangerous, dangerous to both public and private morals and dangerous to the public peace and good order of society, and then says that the saloon has the same legal basis as the business of the dry goods merchant, the groceryman, the hardware merchant, or any other legitimate traffic.

Then, in the same 'opinion, the court says: “No person has a right to carry on, upon

his own premises or elsewhere, for his own gain or amusement, any public business clearly calculated to injure and destroy public morals, or to disturb the public peace.”

If a logical application of this legal maxim be made to the saloon, upon the court's own estimate,

[ocr errors]

the inevitable conclusion must be that no person has a right to conduct a saloon, for his own gain or amusement, upon his own premises or elsewhere, because the court correctly declares that the saloon endangers both the public morals and the public peace.

Then, to put the saloon and the drygoods store upon the same legal basis, we must be able to say that no man has a right to conduct a drygoods store, for his own gain, upon his own premises or elsewhere, which we can not do, for the element of danger to the public morals and the public peace is wholly absent.

The ban upon the saloon is founded upon its inherent dangers. In George vs. Aiken, 26 L. R. A 345, the Supreme Court of South Carolina makes this distinction in the following language: “We can not for a moment believe that the court would have declared an act constitutional that prohibited entirely the sale of corn, cotton, or other ordinary commodities. It is fallacious to argue, in the light of this distinction, so thoroughly sustained by the authorities, that, if the government can take the exclusive control of the liquor traffic, it can do so as to any of the other avocations in life.”

In Crowley vs. Christenson, 137 U. S. 86, the Supreme Court of the United States, speaking of the saloon, said: “As it is a business attended with danger to the community it may, as already said, be entirely prohibited."

The element of danger to the public is the ground

« السابقةمتابعة »