صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

study the problem of municipal government in this country without realizing that one of the most corrupting influences in local government is this same liquor traffic.”

These statements are merely elaborations of the estimate placed upon the saloon, by the courts, when they affirm that it may be prevented altogether.

On June 25, 1907, the Indiana Supreme Court, while acknowledging that danger and evil to the peace and good order of society attend and inhere in the saloon, held that it was right and legitimate at common law, and incidentally suggested that to think otherwise is to entertain strange and singular views.

On June 26th, the Indianapolis News endorsed the opinion of the Supreme Court and said that its statements were as clear as the axioms of geometry. By endorsing the language of the court and the governor both, the News puts itself in the attitude of affirming that the saloon is a lawful outlaw.

The various statements of the courts, when put together on the basis of reason, mean the same thing

CHAPTER VIII

THE SALOON IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT

“No one possesses a constitutional right to keep a saloon for the sale of intoxicating liquor.”

The above language has been used by the Supreme Court of Indiana in three different opinions ; it has been used by the Supreme Court of the United States and by the Supreme Courts of Kansas and Michigan and possibly others. It is not a mere, idle expression; it means much. It can hardly be regarded as a casual remark. It is nothing more than fair to presume, from the frequency of its use, that the courts intended the full meaning of the statement.

But what is the meaning of the statement? By the method of circumlocution, we may ascertain what the courts have declared to be constitutional rights. Section one of article fourteen of the Constitution of the United States provides : "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or 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 law.”

In State vs. Scougal, 51 N. W. 858, the Supreme Court of South Dakota said: "These constitutional provisions are not mere glittering generalities, but constitute sacred guarantees to the citizen that his liberty and his right to the pursuit of happiness shall not be abridged, and his right to his property shall not be invaded by the legislative power, except so far as authorized by the sovereign power, or by due process of law.” What are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which no state legislature can rightfully abridge or take away?

In Corfield vs. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 380, Justice Washington said: “I have no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which were, in their nature, fundamental, which belong of right to citizens of all free governments, and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose the Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent and sovereign, and, considering these privileges, they may all be comprehended under the following general heads: Protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety. No proposition is more firmly settled than that it is one of the fundamental rights and privileges of an American citizen to adopt and follow such lawful industrial pursuits, not injurious to the community, as he may see fit.”

In the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Field, commenting upon this language of Justice Washington, said: “This appears to me to be a sound construction of the clause in question. The privileges and immunities designated are those which of right belong to the citizens of all free governments. Clearly, among these must be placed the right to pursue a lawful employment in a lawful manner without other restraints than such as equally affect all persons.”

In State vs. Scougal, the Supreme Court of South Dakota says: “The right of ‘enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting property, and the pursuit of happiness, includes the right to pursue any lawful calling, occupation, or business, and the right to choose the means of acquiring property and the pursuit of happiness, not inconsistent with constitutional provisions or the .rights of others. The term 'liberty,' as used in the constitution, does not mean mere freedom from arrest or restraint, but it means liberty in a broader and more comprehensive sense. It means freedom of action; freedom in the selection of a business, calling, or avocation; freedom in the control and use of one's property, so far as its use is not injurious to the community, and does not infringe the rights of others; freedom in exercising the rights, privileges, and immunities that belong to citizens of the country generally; and freedom in the pursuit of any lawful business or calling selected by him. Of but little value to the citizen could be these provisions of the constitution, if the state, through the legislative power, could, at its mere will and pleasure, deprive him of his right to pursue any lawful business or calling, not offensive or injurious to the community, and which does not interfere with the equal rights of others, and the right to pursue which he has derived from the common law."

SALOON AN UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT All of these declarations are to the effect that it is one of the guaranteed, constitutional rights of a citizen to pursue any lawful business or callingany business or calling not offensive or injurious to the community. So, when courts declare that the saloon business is not a constitutional right, they thereby affirm that it is not a lawful business or calling, because it is offensive and injurious to the community; that the right to pursue it is not derived from the common law, because it is dangerous and destroys the equal rights of others.

Cooley, on Torts, says: “What the legislature ordains and the constitution does not prohibit must be lawful. But if the constitution does no more than to provide that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, except by due process of law, it makes an important provision on this subject, because it is an important part of civil liberty to have the right to follow all lawful employments.

"The following of ordinary and necessary employments of life is a matter of right. Every person has a right to make use of his own labor in any lawful employment on his own behalf. This is one of the first and highest of civil rights.”

In Bertholf vs. O'Reilly, 74 N. Y. 509, the court said: “The right to liberty includes the right to exercise his faculties, and to follow a lawful avocation for the support of life."

In re Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98, the court said: "So, too, one may be deprived of his liberty and his constitutional rights thereto violated without the actual imprisonment or restraint of his person. Liberty,

« السابقةمتابعة »