OCR Text |
Show H NOTES ON "INHERENT AND CON- M STITUTIONAL RIGHTS." fl We hear much about the Constitu- M fional right of the saloonkeeper Here M is what the United States Supreme M Court, in a case entitled "Crowley vs. M Christensen, says; "There Js no inher- M cnt right In a citizen to sell lntoxi- H eating liquors by retail. It Is not a H privilege of a citizen of a State or of H a citizen of the United States." M Intoxicating Drinks Produce Crime. H The Supreme Court of the State of M Illinois says: "Wc presume no one M would have the hardihood to contend M that the retail sale of intoxicating M drinks does not tend, in a large de- H gree, to demoralize the community, j to foster vice, produce crime, and beg iry, want and misery." M Few Sources Equal 'the Drarr Shops. M In "State vs. Duerin" th Kansas H Supreme Court has the following; "By H tho general concurrence of opinion of every civilized and Christian com- M munlty, there are few sources of crime H and misery to society, equal to tho H .dram shop." H No Constitutional Rights. H The United States Supreme Court M has decided against the liquor inter- H csts In their charge of "confiscation of M property," in the following case: Mug- H lcr vs. Kansas: "Nor can it be said H that povernmont interferes with, or H impairs, anyone's constitutional rights H of liberty or of property, when it de- H termines that the manufacture and M Eale of intoxicating drinks, for general M or Individual use, as a beverage, are, M or may become, hurtful to society, and M constitute, therefore, a business in H which no one may lawfully engage." Hj Are Under Police Power. H In "Beer Co. vs. State of Mass.", the Hl United States Supreme Court hec held H as follows- "If the public safety or the H public morals require the dlsqontlnu- H ance of anv manufacture or traffic, the B hand of th& legislature can not be H stayed from providing for Us discon- H tinuancc, by any Incidental Inconven H lence with Individuals or corporations H may suffer. All rights are held sub- H Ject to the police power of the state." H May Prohibt't Altogether. H Chief Justice Taney, in license cases H said: "And if anv State deems the H retail and internal traffic In ardent H spirits Injurious to Its citizens, and H calculated to produce idleness, vice or H debauchery, I, isce nothing In the con- M stltutlon of the United States to pre- B vent It from regulating and restrain- j ing the traffic, or from, prohibiting It Hl altogether4 if it thinks proper." Hj Loss of Revenue. M The liquor business is, as has been H said, inherently wrong. No one has M any right or "personal liberty" to do H wron-r. The personal liberty of othors H ends Just where your personal liberty H begins, and the "personal liberty" of H the liquor business encroaches upon H and is destructive of tho personal lib- 1 erty of every member of society. To H close these notes, we will quote from H , tho United States Supreme Court, in H , 5 Howard, 632, upon the subject of Hj "Loss of Revenue": "If a loss of rove- M nue' shall accrue to the United States H from a diminished consumption of ard- M enf spirits, she will be a gainer a thousand fold In the health, wealth and happiness of the people." Tho same truth applies with equal force to Ogden City. |