Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1856-01-04

power to buy and sell liquor Z in every
township in the State where a MAORI
ty demonstrated was taken away
But this court did not declare the Law
void.
BY an act to license groceries in The
counties of Carroll and Cass, it was
left TO The voters of the respective
! townships whether the retail Of liquor
should be licensed or prohibited
Laws l842, p. l66. The provision.
oil this act were extended TO Clarke
county. with an amending section.-
laws l844-5. p.l05. In l847 this
law was made general. with the ex-
ception Of two couniies.-Aets 1871,
p, 467. In the following year that
qualified or indirect prohibition policy
was renewed and of course approved
by amending The act, givingiI great
err efliciency-Laws 1848. p. rs. Ii
was again amended in 1849 as to the
counties ofDecatur. Ripley, Jefferson
| Dearborn. Henry. Ohio. Union. Park.
DC, making it still more stringent
Acts l849. p. 49,. At the same ses
sion there was separate act. of a
similar character for Wabash county.
lib. p. 81.
The sane qualified prohibitory poll
cy, by means Of the township vote,
was attempted under the new consti
tuition in the liquor act Of 1853. Il
was declared unconstitutional for other
reasons, not going into the inhibilory
features; In commenting on that acl
The court says: "Had the people in
each township voted mo license there
would have been no operative license
law In the State for one year from
April, 1858. And had the people so
voted every year for all time to come.
no license could ever have been issu
ed. Maize VS.. the State, Ind. 342
The prohibition TO retail less than a
gallon was complete. During all this
period from 1882 to 1853, there was
standing prohibition and penalty
against selling without license so lhat
the prohibitory policy as to retail was
distinctly evolved.
There was third series OF legisla-
tive acts directly adopting the prohibi-
tory principle. Thus in January, 49,
49, special act was passed prohibit
ing the sale of any spirits in Dali
ton township. Wayne county. for any
other than scientific or medicinal pur
poses.-Acts l849. p. 80. At the
same session similar act was passed
prohibiting the barter or sale of spirit
nous liquors in Posey township. Rush
Co., except for medicinal or mechani.
cal purposes. 10. p. IS. The follow
ing year, contemporaneously with the
convention. an act was passed for
Plainfeld, Hendricks Co., prohibiting
the sale Of any intoxicating liquor
whatever within two miles OF the Post
Office except for medicinal, scientific.
or. sacramental purposes.-Acts 1850.
p. 1873.
Thus was the prohibitory principle
adopted partially in regard to certain
classes. as Indians; contingently all
over the State BY the township vote;
and in certain localities adopted di
rect,y.
To these may be added the. power
conferred by charters upon towns and
cities to inhibit or license the sale at
their pleasure; thus clearly assuming
that the State had herself the power
which she had granted to the munich
palities.
Thus had the State by series OF
epactments at different times and in va
rious ways, asserted the principles OF
prohibition whenever she deemed it ne
cessary.
During all this period the action OF
the several departments of abe gov.
eminent were concurrent and harmoni
Gus. The courts expounded and en-
dorsed these prohibilory laws-the ex-
ecutiye officers enforced lhem.-State
VS.. Sticky. Q Blackf. 900. State VS.
Jackson. A Blackf. 80. State VS.. Wat
son. Blackf 40. State VS.. Graeter,
6 Backf LOG. State VS.. Furman. ID.
348. B!odgets VS.. the State, Ind.
402. State VS.. Clark. 10. 45l. Far
well VS. the State, Id. SIS.
Such was the state of the question
when the convention which formed the
present constitution assembled.
There was n proposition presented
TO that body to the effect that the
State should. divest herself OF all COM
picity with the traffic in liquor as a
source Of revenue. That was the
whole extent of the proposition. and il
was voted down. What was the ef
feet of that vote? To leave The ques-
ton where it found it. And perhaps
il was thus disposed oflike many 9th
err propositions. because deemed TO be
more properly legislative than institu-
tional
While the convention was engaged
in limiting such local legislation as
these liquor acts were, they cannot be
supposed to have overlooked the pro-
hibiIory principle. Had that feature
been obnoxious it would have been
modified. But while checking these
local laws they silently acquiesced in
their principles. This is weighty
consideration as part Of the history
Of the subject. In accordance with
the doctrine of this court in 8 Blackf.
384, we cannot doubt but that the
convention intended to leave the liquor
tratlic-rnE PROHIBITION PRINCIPLE IN
cLuDEp-precisely where . found it,
in the discretion Of the legislature.
So that the state of the question
when the present constitution was
adopted favors the principle of prohi-
bition.
Some confusion has arisen from a
play on the words regulate" and
prohibit" II is conceded that the
legislature has the power to regulate.
And why? The unregulated traffic is
found to be pregnant with social evils;
injurious to the health and morals Of
the community. In brief, il is notori-
ously inconsistent with that peace,
A A IL A. 4