صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

or Acts of Congress, but by their Creator, with certain inalienable rights,' that is, rights which cannot be bartered away or given away or taken away except in punishment of crime; ‘and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these,' not grant them but secure them, “governments are instituted among men.'

The Supreme Court of Arkansas says: "All men are created equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, amongst which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness. The right to liberty, the right to acquire, possess and protect property and the right to pursue happiness all include the right to follow and pursue, for the support of life, any lawful trade or pursuit.

"Can there be any doubt that the right of a man to sell food, to purchase, lease and cultivate lands, or to perform honest labor for wages, with which to support himself and family is among those rights, declared in the constitution to be inherent in every

man?”

There is an inherent right in every man to follow a lawful business or calling. There is no inherent right, according to court decisions, in any man to keep a saloon. From these premises the conclusion that the saloon is unlawful is certainly inevitable. No court, probably, has more often or more clearly defined inherent rights and inherent powers than has the Supreme Court of Indiana, which has declared, at least eight different times, that an inherent right or an inherent power is one that exists independently of any statute and requires no legislative delegation to justify its exercise.

Then, those rights, which are not inherent, do not exist independently of any statute, and they do require legislative delegation to justify their exercise. The Supreme Court of Indiana has three times, if not oftener, said that no person has an inherent right to keep a saloon; so that, no man, independently of the license statute and its legislative delegation, has a right to keep a saloon. If so, then the saloon is a legalized institution.

Discussing this question editorially, the Indianapolis News says: “Men have the same inherent rights to keep saloons and sell liquor that they have to keep bake-shops and shoe-stores and sell bread and shoes.”

The statement is to the effect that they have the same inherent right to do the one as the other. The Supreme Court of the United States and, at least, twenty-five different State Supreme Courts have affrmed that no man has an inherent right to keep a saloon. Then, if the bake-shop and shoe-store stand on the same legal footing, as the News asserts, no man has an inherent right to keep either a bake-shop and sell bread or a shoe-store and sell shoes. And then, to apply the holding of the Supreme Court of Indiana, that those rights, which are not inherent, are delegated by statutes, the next conclusion must be that there is some statute delegating the right to sell bread and shoes, as well as liquor.

The liquor statute is very easily found, but the man that undertakes to point out the bread statute and the shoe statute will be wholly unable to find them.

Every man has an inherent right to follow any lawful calling. The bake-shop and the shoe-store are both lawful callings, therefore, they are both inherent rights. The saloon is always and everywhere attended with injury to the safety, health, peace, good order and morals of the community and is, for that reason, unlawful, and consequently has no inherent right to exist.

CHAPTER XI

ور

THE SALOON IS NOT A NATURAL RIGHT "To sell intoxicating liquor at retail is not a natural right to pursue an ordinary calling."

The writer can not be consistently charged with entertaining delusions in making this statement, because the language is copied from the opinions of the Supreme Court of Indiana, and this court is perfectly sane at all times—or otherwise. An analysis of the statement undeniably discloses that it is the view of the court that ordinary callings are natural rights, and, as it asserts that the saloon is not a natural right, it thereby affirms that the saloon is not an ordinary calling. If the saloon is not a natural right, it is certainly some other kind of a right, if it can be a right at all. Those rights, which are not natural, are surely created rights. The saloon is not a natural right, because it is not an ordinary calling, and it is not an ordinary calling, because it is harmful and dangerous to society, consequently an unlawful business. As it is not a natural right, because it is unlawful, it can not become a right at all unless it be made lawful, that is, unless it be legalized. The Supreme Court of Arkansas says:

"All rights which appertain to men are of one or the other of two classes, that is to say: 1. Natural rights; or 2. Acquired rights. The former are such as appertain originally and essentially to men, such as are inherent in his nature, and which he enjoys as a man independent of any particular act on his side. The latter, on the contrary, are those which

« السابقةمتابعة »