Marshall County Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1855-1859, 1855-11-15

practice OF usings These acts are bu,
means of acquiring and enjoying. and
ale absolutely incidental TO them What.
We may ask. is The right Of property
worth. sl,ipt Of the right of producing
and using il? The right of property is
~4Yal Invaded By obslructing the free
aIp Q11E' ID Of the means of produce, ion.
isX@kARXee!Iy depriving the proprietor
sasnfurt of his land says Polit
|NWmy. 1873
|Hn Arrow Smith Y. Burlinser. Nc
I Lean on p. 497. it is said: a freeman
may buy and sell at his pleasure Thi.
right is not ff~m society but from ma iure
He nsyer gave i: up. 1t would br anus
ing TO see ii man hunting through our law
books ioI authority TO make Bargain
t. the same effect Lord Coke. 2 Inst p.
~ Ru,herfords Institutes. p 20. This
great natural right Of using our liberty
n pursuing trade and business for The &C.
QUESTION of property, and of pursuing
our happiness in using it. though not Sc
cure in Europe from the invasons of ON.
nipotent parliamrnts or executives. is
secured TO US by our constitution. For
in addition 10 the first section VIII Oh We
have quoted. and aside from the fact that
the very purpose OF establishing the con
stiiuiiOn was such security. by Seciiun | |
Art. l. i, is declared that we shall be
secure in our persons. houses. papers and
fleets from un'easona bic srarch and seiz
ure. BY section 81 we have the RICH,
10 devote our labor TO our own advantage
md 10 keep our property or its value for
own use. 81 they cannot be taken from u
withou, being paid for. And By Section
IL II is declared that every man. for IN
jury done TO him in his person. property
or reputation. shall have remedy by due
course OF law These sections fairly
construed will protect the citizen in the
use nj his industrial lacultrs. and in the
enjoyment of his acquisitions. This doc
rine is not new in this court. In Doe
v. Douglas. Black, 10. in speaking of
The mutations liz our constitution upon
The Legislative power. it is said. they
restrain the legislature from passing a
law impairing the obligation Of a con
tract. from the performance oil a judicial
net. and from any nagran, violation Of
the right Of private property. This lat
ter restriction We think. clearly contain
ri in the Is, and Gath sections Of The Is,
article OF our constitution Of 1916.
We lay down this proposition. then
IS applicable TO the present case: thai
The right of liberty aud pursuing hsppi
ness secured by the constitution. -mbra.
crs ihr ght OF each compos mentis indi-
vIdual. of selecting what he will eat mud
drink. in short. his beverages ST. far hs h
may be capable of producing them. o.
they may be within his reach and ;hs:
the legislature cannot take ava, bv di.
rect enactment. II The constitution does
not SECURE this right to the people. il ST..
cures nothing OF value Ii the pe"pl.
arr subjrr, to be conlrolrn by the legis
iaturc in the matter of their beverages
So they are TO their articles of dress nnn
in thrir sleeping and waking And If
the people are inrOmpeten, To select their
"wn beverages. they are also ,ncomp-te ten:
Ia determine any thing in relation TO their
living and should u, once be placed in d
,tate Of pupiagr 10 set Of govern
ment sumpluary officers; eul"gi-s upon
The dignity of human nature shnu'.. ress-
and the doririne If the competency of
The people tor self government b- de
clared n rhetorisnl flourish. If the gov
-rnInent can prohibit IN, practice it plea
Ses, 1t can prohibit the drinking of cold
water. Can it do tha,7 IL not. why NOT?
1t we are right in this. that the c"Ii>titu
tim restraints the legislature from passing
law regulating the die, "i The people. d
Sumpiuary law. for that under cnDsidera
non is such. ~ m,tter wh-th-r its object
IT. moral or economy. or both; then thr
legislature cannot prohibit the mauufac
tufs and Sale for use as bevefag" of ale,
porter beer. &c. aud cannot declare
hose manufactured. KEEP, for sale and sold
tor that purpose nuisance. II such is
The use To which those articles are put by
the people. 1t all resolves itself INFO
this, as in the raso Of printing. worship
ping God. &c. IL this constitution
'oes protect the people in their right. The
legislature may prohibit; it it does, the
Legislature cannot. We think the con.
stilu;ion fun finishes the protection. Ii il
does not IN this particular. it does. as
we have said. To nothing Of importance.
and tea. coffee. tuhucco corn. bread. ham
and eggs NAV next br placed under the
ban. The very extent To which q con
cession Of the power IN this case would
carry its ex-rrisr show il cannot exist
We are confirmed in this view when we
consider that at the adoption Of our pres.
rnt constitution. there were in thu State
fifty brew-ries and distilleries. IN which
u half a million of dollars was invested
five hundred men employed; which fur
nished markr, annually for two mil
lion bushels of grain. aud turned out
manufactured products to the value of a
million ofsdollars. which were consumed
by our people to great extent as a be,
ersge. With these facts existing. the
question of incorporating Into the coDs;i
tuition the prohibitory principle was re-
peatedly brought before the constitution
al convention. and uniformly rejected -
Debates in the convention. vol. 2. p. p
nd tur d