Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1856-01-03

By an act to license groceries in the counties b
of Carroll aud Cass, II was left To the voters of "
the respective townships whether the retail OF Il
liquor should be licensed or prohibited Laws Fl
1912. ID. l56. The provisions of this act were p
subsequently, extended to Clarke county with {
an amending section.-Laws lS44-5, p. 1903. In Z
Is41 this law was made general. with the eX- ]
csption of two counties-Acts 1917, p. 46-7.- f
In the following year that qualified or indirect .
prohibitory policy was renewed and OF course
approved by amending the act, giving it greater Il
eficicncy..Laws IS4S, p. Is. IL was again a
amended in lS49 as to the counties OF Decatur, |
Ripley, Jefferson, Dearborn. Henry. OHIO,
Union, Parke. dc, making it still more strIn- =
gent Acts l849, p. 50. At the same session :
there was a separate act of a similar character
for Wabash cousty.-lb.P p. -. VI
The same qualified prohibitOry policy, by
means Of the township vote, was attempted un-
der the new constitution in the liquor act OF lo35.
Ii was declared unconstitutional for other rea-
seas. not going to the inhibitory features. In
commenting Oh that act the court says: Had
the people Of each township voted mo license,
there would have been no operative license law
in the State for one year from April, 1888. And
had The people SO voted every year for all time
to come, no license could ever have been issued.
Maize VS.. the State, 4 Ind. 342. The Prohi-
bition to retail less than a gallon was complete.
During all this period from 1882 to 1888 there
was a standing prohibition and penalty against
selling without license. so that the prohlOitory
policy as to retail was distinctly evolved.
There was a third series of Legislative acts
directly adopting the prohibitory principle
Thus in January, 1919, a special act was passed
prohibiting the sale of any spirituons liquors in
Dalton township, Wayne county, for any other
than scientific or medicinal PurPoses.Acts
lS4Y, p. 81. AT the same session a similar act
was passed prohibiting the barter or sale of
spirituous liquor in posey township, Rush Co.
except for medicinal or mechanical purposes
Id. p. 50. The following year, contemporaries
2 ously with the convention. an act was passed
for TlaInfeld, Hendricks Co., prohibiting the
| sale OF any intoxicating liquor whatever within
= two miles of the Post Office except for medici-
Il nal, scientific, or sacramental purposes--Acts
Il 1850, p. l23.
c Thus was the prohibitory principle adopted
J. partially in regard to certain classes, as Indians;
1 contingently all over the State by the township
o vote; and in certain localities directly,
To these may lie added the power conferred
by charter on towns and cities To inhibit or Ii
cense the sale at their pleasure: thus clearly as
~ Stunning that the State had herself the power
which she granted to the municipalities.
4 Thus has the State by a series of enactments
at different times and in various ways, asserted
q the principle OF prohibition whenever she
deemed it expedient.
During all this period the action OF the sew
il eral departments of the government were con-
current and harmonious. The courts eXpoun-
at ded aud endorsed these prohibitory laws-the
ST executive officers enforced them.--State vs..
STICKY, . Blackf. 2S9. State vs.. jackson, 4
m Blackf. 40. State vs.. Watson. 5 Blackf. 40. State
n VS.. Graeter, 6 Blaekf. loo. State vs. Furman, ID.
be 34S, Blodgeut W. the State, Ind. 402. State vs..
in Clark | ISL. Farwell VS.. The State, Id. 573.
On Such was the state of the question when the
4 convention which framed the present constitu-
ton assembled.
Thara ~ a nronosition nrsssnted 10 that
d. body to the effect that the State should diyest
e. herself of all completely with the traffic ia IL
n. quor as a source of revenue. That was the
IA. whole extent Of the proposition and it was voted
ve down. What was the effect OF that votey To
" leave the question where it found it. And per
al haps it was thus disposed of like many other
propositions, because deemed to be more prop
erly Legislative than Institutional.
IS. While the convention was engaged in limit
nd ing such local legislation as these liquor acts
he were. they cannot be supposed to have over
looked the prohtbitory principle. Had that
yn feature been obnoxious it would have been
es modified. But while checking these local laws
they silently acquitsced in their principles
N This is a weighty consideration as part of the
of history Of the period. In accordance with the
he doctrine of this court in 5 Blackf. 3Sl, we can
r. not doubt but that the convention intended u
leave the liquor traffic-rHg PRoHIBIToRY rRIN
cd cIPLR iScLUbED-precisely where IL found II, u
5e. the discretion of the legislature.
nd So that the state of the question when th'
HI present constitution was adopted, faV"rs th'
Is, prohibition.
r. Some confusion has arisen from a play on Ia,
a words regulate" and prohibit" 1t is con
in coded that the Legislature has the power TO reg
Ia ulate. And why2 The unregulaIed traffic n
by found To be pregnant with social evils iniu
he rious to the health and morals Of the commu
Pr nifty. In brief, it is VIGOROUSLY inconsistent
lal with that "peace, safety, and well being OF tn
- l. l. -. IL, A.a .f.f NINA. .n.lo n
eel To promote.
"a. Hence the right of the Legislature to interior.
lo, in any manner. Upon any other hypothesis
the attempt 30 regulate would be "a much 4
s- piece OF legislative desPotism as the attempt To
to prohibit. Even prohibition itself is bsa on,
he kind of regulation. The regulation whether
ST. mild or extreme, partial car entire, Is the sans
in principle. The difference is not in the kim
.se of interference, but in the degree. The ac
ice which prohibits the sale of intoxicating liquO
IN by a less quantity than a quart, a gallon. o
is twenty gallons at a time is cOurieously called
de regulating law. But it is too plain for argu
ment that slch a law is Inconsistent with tina
despotic right of properly which is claimed Il
es- be secured by the constitution. Is it the rgh
rts of the citizen TO buy and sell aud enjoy pro
4 perry as he pleasesy IL so, a gallon law is al
ng invasion Of that right. So is every act limiting
the quantity. No matter at what point you IL
ute the limit, at two OF ten gallons or by wha
VS. name you call IL, regulation or prohibition
they are all in principle the same. Below tn
nee liked point they are all in their nature prOhibl
,rd tory.
ich So long a. those who advocate the liouo
lch traffic deny the right of the Legislature TO inter
De- fere ia any degree, they are consistent. On ab
be stract principles that species of property is Il
secure as any other. The owners of liquor lbs
oil IT for taxation and pay taxes upon IT like oIhe
i've property. The reciprocal duty of government
oi - to protect. Upon what principles are liquo
DIF Il. a. = III $500 go.
lth extravagant rates, and file a bond, dc. To emit
be- tie them to yend and deal in liquors2 And why
* even after that. should they be restrained as I,
US quantiry, time, and place? Abstractly, FREE
U. traffic in liquor is as much a right of piivat'
iso property, as free traffic in -four or corn or mer
chandI re. In the abstract, any duty, or tax, o
ms burden imposed upon il is utterly indefensible
.he Baker os. Orr, 4 Ind. But if it is admitted tina
Ice to conserve "the peace, safety, and we'll being
'us of society the traffic may be regulated and re-
me strained in any degree, the whole point of con
nat troversy is conceded. After that concession i
OIL Will require i very nice and discriminatin.
d. casui,t TO show that to conserve the public
''peace, safety, and well being" the legislaiur,
I've may not, if need be, prohibit The traffic alto
gether.
ell In the abstract. all government is tyranny
mt all political discretion despotism, all interior
ie- ence to regulate the enjoyment of private pro
Try perry an invasion Of right. Take a single ex
he ample. Two men sit down TO play cards fo
of money. The room, the cards, the money, ar,
es. all their own private property. BY what RICH
10 does the Legislature call this amusement by Ga,
cy naughty name of Gambling" and punish IT &c
IT, cordlnglyl The only possible reason is tina
oh this species of amusement is found to be preiu
te. dicial to the public morals.
A law to prohibit the sale OF bread would
es, stand abstractly on the same principle "a a Law
on to prohibit the sale Of liquor. Wherein do they
of differ In the consequences Of their use The
at. glutton is himself the chief sufferer. The ten.
'e- dency of the inebriate is TO disturb the peace
aud violate the decencies of society. Ia the
IS. end the public purse is taxed either 10 support
VS. him as a pauper or punish him az a felon.
re Hence the life of a law is the reason or ne.
is cessity for its enactment. While the prohibi-
a. lion nf the gale Of hread wnnll he louisI.tir.