Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1855-12-28

DRUNKENNESS ~ admitted 70 DE an
evil 70 the individual and 10 the State
dostrncliveto the mind and body,
productive Of most OF the crime that
Is committed. III supported by the
tax ton of the people; i destroys the
peace. safety and happiness Of the peo-
pie. which the first article In the bill
Of rights declares al free government
are instituted to secure; and these ef.
frc,s are alleged to result chiefly from
commerce In the prohibited articles.
The Legislature has assumed these
evils TO exist, and IL does not devolve
upon this court to declare that they do
not. The enquiry is not open to US.
We cannot legally or constitutionally
assume that We knew more Of the Ell.
fects ofthis traffic than the Legislature.
TO provide for the peace. safety and
happiness Of the people no power is
given 10 this coiut--it is devoived up
"a the Legislature. Our powers are
As clearly limited and defined rs those
81 the Legislature. An attempted in.
irngement by this Cour. upon the
powers Of the Legislature would
be itself unconstitutional and subver-
sive of free government. Ii tribu
nal OF last resort oycrleaps It's consti-
lu,ional barriers. and invades the pro-
vince OF the Legislature. there being
no common arbiter. and the ballot box
being poweflcss, there is no remedy
but revolution. f-
Il is said liquors are property; that
they are projected az such by the
Constitution: that they are not per Sc
nuisances. and that the Legislature
has no power to declare them so ~
This Is only stating the objection in
another form. Who is to Judge wheih-
En- liquors. as used in Commerce, are
nuisances or not? A nuisance is de-
fined to be anything that wo,keth
hurt. inconvenience or damage to the
public" Dsorderly inns. gaming
houses, &c, are nuisances, because
,hey encourage idleness and corrupt
The public morals. Blackf. 474; 3
Blackf. Com. els; BAG. Ab. t47; Q
Blackf. 26o;4 Ind. 1854; In the lat
ter case this court decided that il was
competent for the legislature TO declare
any practice deemed injurious to the
public nuisance. and to punish ii ac-
cordingly. The legislation of this
State since 1907 has oot-lawed the
traffic in many ways. sometimes de-
claring the places where liquors we're
sold. naisances, and sometimes abso-
lulely prohibiting sales in certain dis
tricts, and for the violation. at these
laws this Court has sustained numer-
Gus convictions. Gaming apparatus.
obscene books. de-, are prohibited by
our past and present laws. No copy
right can exist in 4 work OF immoral
or obscene description. S'ory's Ell.
Jur. sec. 936; and it is general prin-
ciple that nuisances may be abated
removed and destroyed. IL Wend.
$50; 2 Dana. 258; { B'ackf. 534: Is
Wend S97; II Pick. 45e: IL Id 1874;
Rich. 385; 10 Harvard U. s. r.. 5l8
The last was the Wheeling bridge
case. in which. although the interests
OF Pennsylvania and Virginia were in
yolyed, when declared nuisance. IL
was ordered to be abated. This was
certainly property.
Slavery was abolished in the north.
westere territory by the Ordinance Of
1891, BIackf., 60. 1t is said large
sums arc invested in distllleries. They
are probably small in comparison to
the money invested in the slave trade
when Il was out-lawed and declared
piracy. Property engaged IN SNUG
Cling is forfeited and frequently confs-
Gated.
Liquors. under certain Circumstance
es, the legislature have declared mi.
sances. Does q is court know that,
AS used IA common. they do not work
hurt or damage to the public, or TO
the public morals? That they do not
produce idleness, vagrancy, and
crime? Such conclusion involves an
absurdity no less than this Court
knows that to be false which the
rest Of mankind know to be true.
! The act is said to interfere with
men in the pursuit of happiness. -
That is q vague term which has no
relation to relative rights or duties
4 Allowing what is claimed for it. there
would be an end Of the Criminal Code,
We.prohibit marriages between whites
and blacks, and make them felonies,
The State deems the product Of sucl,
marriages and OF commerce in liquors
an undesirable class of persons, and
seeks to prohibit them.
A distinction is taken between the
regulation and prohibition Of the traffic
Ii the mw positively forbids selling te
minors. drunken persons. and lndisns'
is called regulating, while il nosales
can be made il is called prohibition
One Il Is admitted. is constitutional
while the other is said not 10 be-
This argument has great respect &c
the rights Of the vender but none "a
those OF the buyer, whose unbelievable
rights are as sacred as his, The
same distinction is sough. to be mad,
between retailing. which We have Of
ten prohibited, and wholsaling. IT i
: difficult 10 see how the mere choice 0
words can have so great All infiuenc'
upon a mans inalienable rights. o.
how il is that he can have an unques
toned constitutional right to buy
large quantity, but no right at s''.i +
buy a small one.
II is admitted by the appellant tina
|, the evils resulting from commerce O,
liquors may be regulated by imposin,
tax for the license. The taxin,,
poweris said to lc unlimited. and Ii i
/, Il may amount 70 a prohibition. Gov
eminent is not mere theory. II i
useful only as it is practical. To de
ny men their rights In plain terms ha
at least the merit Of straightforward
mess. Ii that cannot be done. fails,
pretense OF raising v revenue. which