| Show prohibition AND STATES RIGHTS THE right of each state in the union to regulate its own internal affairs Is ia one that to is inherent and js recognized and affirmed in the constitution of the united states to the he form of government ern nt which has been established on this free land to preserve the liber liberties tiet and rights of the respective spec tive states is as absolutely necessary to the perpetuation of that form of government as to maintain the powers of the united states when these are encroached upon in any state there is danger to the entire nation it is one of the purposes and objects of the dern democratic party to keep them intact the republican party concedes them in theory but sometimes ignores them to some extent in practice and is rather more anxious to assert and extend the power of the federal authority than to uphold the sovereignty of the so se voral veral states yet notwithstanding this the supreme court of the united states while composed largely of republican judges has rendered emphatic decisions on the rights of the states as against the exercise of undue national authority among these is a recent ruling in the case cam of crowley against christensen appealed from the united states circuit court of northern california it involved the question of the constitutionality of prohibition by the states A retail liquor dealer in san ban francisco named henry christensen on making application for a renewal of his license was refused by the police Commissio nerson the ground of the bad reputation of his hia place of business he went on selling with out the license was arrested aart sted obtained a writ of we habeas corpus from the circuit court and was discharged from custody the court held that the municipal ordinance under which be bb was arrested and which authorized the police commissioners ners to issue or withhold liquor licenses licensee at discretion was unconstitutional bee i use fuse it denied to the prisoner the equal protection of the laws in that it made his business dependent upon the will of those officers the court of last resort reversed the decision and remanded the defendant back to the custody of the state the opinion was given by judge field a sound democrat and usually consistent and clear in his hia views and their expression the court hold held that the states have ab solute blute control of the liquor traffic within their own borders it is they said add a mattor matter of local police regulation with which the federal government has nothing lothing ti to do except in regard to its tax for revenue rho fhe extent and limits of the sale of liquor to lo be drunk on the wises ju form a question of public expediency and public morality and not of federal law the co court urt said further there is no inherent right of a citizen to ell intoxicating liquors by retail it is not a privilege of a citizen of the state ora or a citizen of the united states la in i he prohibition or regulation of the traffic discretion may be vested in officers to decide to whom to grant and to A horn hom to refuse liquor licenses licenses the officer may not noi always exercise the power conferred upon them with wisdom or justice to the parties affected but that is a matter which does doea not affect the authority of toe the state or one which can be brought under the cognizance of the courts of the united states Y I 1 this decision is far more satisfactory and it appears to us more in consonance with the principles of states rights than the original package decision which brought up in another form may yet be r reversed or modified for the court with the last guess does dees occasionally correct its own errors and completely reverse its own rulings according to this decision not only may states regulate the liquor traffic restrict it say under what conditions it may or what it may not be carried on but they may prohibit it altogether As to the wisdom or ezied expediency bency of prohibition of course this ruling says and effects nothing different persons and parties will huld hold different views on that question but the power of the stated Istatt lo in reference to it Is iq now legally established their right to prohibit is judicially settled this is ia no doubt a step favorable to the prohibitionists but it does not advance their arguments or give giva strength to their theories however it fortifies the states in their powers of local self government and that to is a matter for general congratulation tu because it is vital to the treat great republic the safety and permanence of which are dear to the heart of every patriotic citizen |
