Demoine courier., 1855-03-22
For the Demoine Courier.
THE PROIIBITORY LIQUOR LAW.

presenting some arguments and cDnside-
rat'ons in reference 10 the expediency o:
the liquor law, but having seen an edito-
rial in the "IoUa Sentinel Of the 18th,
inst, and having heard many objections
urged against the law, equally futile with
those Of the Sentinel, rom other sources,
| have concluded 10 notice these objec.'
tons and defer for my next and las.
article on the subject, the quostion Of ex-
pedieacy.
And the first objection TO the law
which shall notice, 10 one made by the
Sentinel. II is this. "The State has no
right TO prohibit the manufacture Of in
toxica,ing liquors, nor prohibit ahogeth.
err the traffic therein" He admits the
State may regulate the traffic. lmme-
diately proceeding this denial to the State.
the Sentinel quotes a decision of the
Supreme Court of the u. s. pronounced
by g. J. fancy in which that Cour, say.
.'If any State deems the RETAIL and
internal TRAFFIC in ardent spirits inju.
rious TO lis citizens, and calculated TO
produce idleness, vice or debauchery, l
see nothing in the CONSTITUTION OF THE
UNITED STATES to prevent it from regu-
lating and restraining the TRAFFIC., or
from PROHIBITING il altogether If i, thinks
proper"
1t is true in this decision il is no, as.
serted that the State have The right TO
prohibi! the manufacture Of ardent spir-
its, Blu, it is true that the Court decide
that the State may prohibit the traffic al
together. The former question was NOT
before the Cour. and hence il was. no,
necessary nor would ithave been proper
for the Cour! tohave volunteered an opin-
ion upon il. Courts generally decide
such questions and such only as are pre-,
scented to them, and should they decide
a question not presented, their decision
upon such question would not be law
If, however, the Editor of the Sentinel
will trouble himself to turn to the decis-
ion of the same Court, given at the Dec.
Term ls48 in the Ease Of Smith and,
Turner, he will there find the question
raised not identical, but analogous, and
upon The question there presented the
Court speaking of the rights OF the
States. say. "7Hey may guard AGAINST
II INTRODUCTION Of ANYTHING rhich
may corrupt the morals, or endanger
the health o. ires of their Citizens"
Will the Sentinel contend that our State
may "guard against the introduction,
and yet possess nc right to prohibit the
manufacture Of The thing" which cor
rupis The morals, or endangers the health
or lives of her citizens. II cannot do
that. L must deny the right to prohibit
the introduction altogether, and denying
this right, must ~denounce the decision of
the Supreme Court of the u. 8. or il
rust admit the other right to prohibi,
the manufacture.
The Sentinel will observe the reason
OF the decision is not to protect the cili-
zens in a lawful traffic against the intru.
sion-the importation by non. residents
il is not oul Of regard 10 the righ. in the
citizens Of each State to monopolize any
given pursuit bet it is out of respect TO
the sheath" "morals" and "Hves'' of
the citizens.
No man, | think will so far disregard
the sound sense and judgement of the
people, as TO affirm that the States may
Of right prohibit altogether the introduc.
ton and traffic within their borders, OF
any infection. and yet possess no power
10 prohibit its generation within their bor-
ders. Such argument, ! know the Editor
cf the Sentinel will not attempt.
These two decisions, Of the Supreme
Cour, Of the U. S. land they are fully
by many other decisions of
the same Court,) establish the right in
the States beyond legitimate controversy,
TO prohibit in.oto both the traffic and
manufacture Of ardent spirits within their
The Sentinel asks the question, in
reference to the rights, retained by the
people when they adopted The Cons,itu.
ton. "Whas rights did the people re-
tain!"
"Was not one of them the right TO en-
gage in the manufacture and sale of all
articles Of merchandise and produce?-
Most certainly. They conceded to gov.
%ernmentthe power to REGULATE, but not
to PROHIBIT.