Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1855-11-23


shall drink any whisky, ale. beer, OF
porter. as beverage, and in no in
stance except as medicine.
Itthus appears that the law abso-
lutely forbids the people OF the State
to manufacture and sell whisky. ale.
porter. and beer, for use as bever-
age; or at all. except for the govern
ment. TO be sold by it for medicine.
DC. and it prohibits, absolutely, the
use Of those articles by the people as
a beverage.
The exception as TO the admission
Of foreign liquors under the constitu-
ton and laws Of the United States,
will be noticed. for the reason that
they are admitted simply because
they cannot be prohibited, and not in
accordance with the spirit and policy
Of the State statute; and which foreign
liquors may or may not be obtained
here according to the contingent ac-
tion of other powers; and for the fur
ther reason, that their admission. il
claimed to be part Of the object
and policy Of the State liquor law. in
order to supply the people with liquor
as a beverage, renders the law duly
Objectionable, for while, according to
such view. the law designs to permit
the use Of liquors as a beverage, it
prohibits the people from manufacture
ing for their own use. Il is as if the
law were that the people might eat
bread but should not raise the grain
and grind it into -four wherewith to
make It. Ii would be an act to pro-
hibit the people from themselves pro-
ducing: and to compel them TO pur-
chase from abroad what they might
need TO eat and drink. 1t would in
volve the principle Of an act to ami
hilate the State by starving the people
constituting il, to death; and such leg
islation would hardly comport. we
think. with constitution established
10 promote the welfare and prosperity
Of the people.
We assume il as established. then.
that the liquor act in question is abso-
lutely prohibitory Of the manufacture,
sale. and use rs a beverage. by the
people OF this State, OF whisky. ale.
porter and beer. The opinion has
been advanced that the manufacture
for sale out OF the State is not prohib-
tied, but il has not the substance Of a
shadow; and the morality Of that law
which prohibits the distribution Of
pauperism and crime. disease and
death. at home, but permits them to
be scattered amongst our ncighbors.
Is not TO be envicd. And we may ms
well remark here as anywhere, that IL
the manufacture and sale of these ar
ticles are proper to be carried on in
the State for any purpose. il is not
competent for the government to take
the business from the people and mo-
nopolize it, The government cannot
turn druggist and soel dealer in medi-
cines in this State. And why? Be.
cause the business was. at and before
the organization Of the government,
and is properly at all times. private
pursuit Of the people rs much SO as
the manufacture and sale Of brooms.
tobacco. cloths, and the dealing in
.ea, coffee, and rice. and the raising
Of potatoes; and the government was
organized TO protect the people in
such pursuits from the depreciation Of
powerful and lawless individuals, the
barons Of the middle ages, whom they
were too weak TO resist single-handled
by force; and for the government now
70 sieze upon those pursuits is sub
vcrsive TO the very object for which it
was created. "a government is gull
ty Of an invasion upon the faculties OF
industry possessed by individuals
when.it apropriates .oitselfa particular
branch Of industry--thc business Of
exchange aud brokerage for example;
or when IL sells the exclusive privilege
Of conducting it."-Say's Political
Economy. note 10 p. 1874.
There are undertakings OF a pub
lie character, such rs the making Of
public highways. providing a uniform
currency, &c. that a single individual
has not power to accomplish. and
which government must. therefore,
prosecute; but they are not the ordi-
nary pursuits Of the private citizen.
These. certainly are the general rule.
and We are not now prepared to name
an exception. the government cannot
engage in. H
This Is all we shall here say upon
this point Time and space forbid
that we should elaborate all that arise
In the case. ri
The question now presents itself.
Secondly. Gould the Legislature oI
this State enact the prohihitory liquor
law under consideration?
Few, ifany. judicial decisions will
ut tbuuQ W hlu u1 III inttstiHttiut
this question. as no such law. in y
country possessed Of n judiciary and q
constitution limiting the Legislative
power, has, till Of late. been enacted
Some twelve hundred years ago. Ma.
homet made such n law u pAt Of hi.
religious creed in opposition to tn,
Jewish and Christian systems. which
recommended the moderate. but for.
bid the excessive use OF intoxicating
liquors. This law Of Mahomet. Ko
ran. PIP. 25 and 93. was perhaps th,
FIRST prohibitory act. but II does mo-
appear to have been adopted By civil
ized nations I'll its late revival in some
shape or other in one or more Of oul
sister States. Hence. II has not Of
ten, II at all, as 10 this point, passel
under Judicial consolidation.
A number Of European writer's OF
natural. public and civil law, are citet
by counsel on behalf Of the State I.
show the extent Of Legislative power
but those writers, respectable, abl,
and instructive upon some subjects a
they are admitted to be. are not au
thority here upon this point. The,
are dangerous, indeed. utterly blin'
guides 10 follow in searching for tn
.f A. 4.