صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

he does not naturally enjoy, but are owing to his own procurement. The right of providing for one's preservation is of the first class."

Then, the saloon is not one of those rights inherent in the nature of man; it is not a right of providing for one's preservation; but it belongs to the class designated as procured or acquired rights. And from whence acquired? From the saloon license statute. So, that the effect of the position of the Supreme Court of Indiana, is to affirm that the saloon is a legalized pursuit.

Discussing natural rights, Blackstone says: “This doctrine, which before was slightly touched, deserves a more particular explication. Those rights then which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture. Neither do divine or natural duties receive any stronger sanction from being also declared to be duties by the law of the land.”

The United States District Court, of Arkansas says: "Every citizen and freeman is endowed with certain rights and privileges, to enjoy which no written law or statute is required. These are fundamental or natural rights, recognized among all free people."

The saloon is not one of these fundamental or natural rights, therefore, to enjoy the privilege of keeping a saloon, a law or statute is required.

From all this two propositions are logically deducible :

First-That, in the absence of legislative approval, the saloon is unlawful.

Second-That, the saloon license statute, instead of restricting or limiting a natural and lawful right, is the means of legalizing a natural wrong.

[ocr errors]

CHAPTER XII

THE SALOON IS NOT A PRIVILEGE OF A CITIZEN OF THE STATE OR OF THE UNITED STATES

The Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court of Indiana and the Supreme Courts of other states have said: “To keep a saloon is not a privilege of a citizen of the state or of the United States."

The only responsibility that the writer has had in connection with this announcement has been to make an honest effort to ascertain its meaning, and then to attempt to enforce it. Why is the keeping of a saloon not a privilege of a citizen of the state or of the United States ? If it is not, there must be some good reason for it.

The Declaration of Independence affirms the equality of man, that is, the equality of rights, and also that the rights of life, liberty and happiness belong to all men alike, on account of this equality, not by virtue of any governmental grant, but by the endowment of God. The first Section of the fourteenth Article of the United States Constitution 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."

The “liberty” and “pursuit of happiness” clauses of the Declaration of Independence, and the "liberty" and "property” clauses of the foregoing provision of the Constitution have been construed by the Supreme Court of the United States and by the Supreme Courts of many states to include the right to follow any lawful pursuit or trade.

The courts have said that liberty does not alone mean exemption from physical restraint or imprisonment, but that it also embraces the privilege of pursuing any lawful occupation; that the pursuit of happiness involves the privilege of conducting the ordinary vocations of life, so that man may support himself and family, and that property is not limited to physical property but extends to and includes the privilege of following a lawful, chosen calling.

In the Butcher's Union, etc., Co. vs. Crescent City, etc., Co., 111 U. S. 746, the court declared that a monopoly of one of the ordinary callings of life is unlawful, and, therefore, an abridgement of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution.

Justice Bradley said: “I hold that the liberty of pursuit, the right to follow any of the ordinary callings of life, is one of the privileges of a citizen of the United States.

"I hold it to be an incontrovertible proposition, of both English and American law, that all mere monopolies are odious and against common right.

"Monopolies are the bane of our body politic at the present day. In the eager pursuit of gain they are sought in every direction. They exhibit themselves in corners in the stock market and produce market and in other ways. If, by legislative enactment, they can be carried into the common avoca

« السابقةمتابعة »