Plymouth weekly banner. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1855-1856, 1855-11-15

Will take notice OF historically. that the
use of liquors. as beverage, and article
of trade and commerce. is SO universal
that they cannot be pronounced a nui.
sance. The world does not so regard
them, and will not till the Bible is dis
carded and sn Overwhelming change In
public sentiment. if not in mans nature,
wrought. And who. as we have asked
before. is to force the people TO discon
tinue the use of beverages?
Counsel say the maxim that you shall
so use your own as not to irJure ano,he
Justifies such law by the legislature. blu,
The maxim is misapplied; for i, contem-
plates the free use. by the owner. of his
property. but with such care as not TO
trespass upon his neighbor: while this
prohibitory law forbids the owner to use
his own in any manner. as beverage.
Ii is based on the principle that man
shall not use at all for enjoyment what
his neighbor may abuse, a doctrine that
would, if enforced BY law in general
practice, nnnihilate society. make eunochs
of all men or drive the m into the cells OF
the Monks. and bring the human race to
an end. or continue il under the Gireci ton
of lice nsed county agents.
Such, however. is not the principle
upon which the Almighty governs the
world. He made man free ugent, and
to give him opportunity to exercise his
will. 10 30 virluous OF vicious as he
should choose. he placed evil as well as
good before him, he put the apple into
the garden of Eden. and left upon man
the responsibility of his choice, made il
moral question. and left it so. He Ell
acted as TO that. moral, not physical
prohibition. He could have easily enact.
ed physical prohibitory law by declar-
ing the fatal apple nuisance and remoy.
ing it. He did not. His purpose was
otherwise. and he has since declared thai
the tares and wheat shall grow together
10 the end Of the world. Man cannot. by
prohibitory law. be robbed of his free
agency. See Millions Arcopagiiics OF
speech for Liberty of unlicenced printing,
works vol. /, p. l66.
But. notwithstanding the legislature
cannot prohibit. it can. bv enac,ments
within constitutional limits. so regu,s te
the use OF intoxicating beverages. as 10
prevent most of the abuses to which the
use may be subject. We 90 not say ,ha,
i, can all; for under our system of gov
eminent. formed in a confidence in man:
capacity TO direct his own conduct. des
, igned to allow TO each individual the
largest liberty consistent with the welfare
r OF the whole. and to subject the private
affairs Of the citizen to the least possible
} government interference. some excuses
! will occur, and must be tolerated. subjec,
, only to such punishment as may be in.
: hicted. This itself will be preventive in
its influence. The happiness enjoyed ia
! the exercise of general reasonably regula
! ted liberty by all overbalances the evil o.
occasional. individual excess. Order
; must not be made TO reign" here as once
"at Warsaw by the humiliation of al
freedom OF action. crushing out, indeed
the spirit itself of liberty. With US, in
the language Of the then llus,rious Burke.
when defending the revolving American
. Colonies. something mns. be pa.Lsaed 60
the spirit of liberty.
} What regulations OF the liquor business
would be constitutional. il is not for us
20 indicate in advance; but those which
the legislature may from time TO time
prescribe can be brought by the citizen TO
the constitutional test before The jud:cia
~. and / will devolve upon tina, depart,
ment to decide upon their consistency
with the organic law; in fact. the ques.
ton OF power. Of usurpstion. between
the people and the peoples represents.
tives; and in doing this. so far as il may
devolve upon us, we shall cheerfully
throw every do1bt in favor of the latter.
aud of s'riDgensregula,ions. Such is the
constitution of our government. Maize "
The State, 4 Ind, 342--Thomas v. The
Board of Commissioners of Clay County.
5 Ind, 557. Greencasile Township v. j..
Black. 5 Ind. 557. Larmer v. The Trus-
tees of Albion. 5 Hill, 1911. Durham v.
The Trustees of Rochester 5 Cowen, 462.
Golfer v. Doty. 5 Ohio Rep. 1913.
IL is like the case OF laws for the CO.
lection of depts. The constitution pro.
hibits The passage Of an act impairing the
obligation of contract; yet the legisla.
iuTe may regulate the remedy upon con.
tracts. but must regulate within such IL
mts as not substantially 10 impair the
remedy, as that would indirectly impair
the obligation of the contrat itself
Gantly's Lessee v. Ewing. How. U.
S. Rep. 707.
Regulations within constitutional H..
mlts, We have no doubt, il efficiently en-.
forced. will accomplish. as we have said,
nearly oil that can reasonably be desired.
The Legislature. we will add, NAV un.
doubtedly require The forfeiture Of such
particular portions Of liquor as shall be
kept for use in violation OF proper regu-
latiops, as in the case of gun powder
stored in populous city, and this for
fixture will be adjudged by the judiciary,
see Cotter D. Doty Supra; but neither all
the gun powder nor liquor in the State.
accompanied by the prohibition of the
further manufacture and use Of the arti-
Gle, can be forfeited on occount OF the
improper use of given quantity, be.
cause the entirety of neither of the arti-
cles is a nuisance. II is not pretended 10
be SO as to gun powder, and we think we
have shown it is not SO as to liquor.
So. it is doubtless competent for The
Legislature to establish proper police re-