The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1871-01-18
TIE PACIFIC
Commercial Aobertiser.
WEDNESDAY,, JANUARY 10.
a Constitutional Question.

A case came up IN the Supreme Court in
Banco on Monday last, which possesses consider
able interest, involving as it does a question as
to the constitutionality of a statute law. The
law in question was approved January 10th,
1865, and is entitled "An Act to prohibit the
maintenance of suits for the recovery of debts
contracted in public houses" The first section
reads as follows:
"No suit brought for the recovery of any debt
contracted AFTER the PRONUNCIATION Of this Act, for
4spirituous liquors sold, or furnished to any person,
by any licensed retail dealer in such liquors, shall be
maintained in any court of this Kingdom"
The case before the Court was one in which
the parties had had dealings together for a con-
siderable length of time as landlord and tenant,
and at the death of the latter, and the settlement
of his estate, the accounts showed O balance
against the landlord, for sundries furnished him
by the tenant, who was a licensed retail dealer in
spirituous liquors. The former pleaded the above
quoted statute in bar of the claim. We give in
brief the arguments of counsel.
Mr.. R. n. Stanley, for the administrators of the
estate. argued that the Act to prohibit the main
tenance of suits for the recovery of debts contracted
in public houses. was calculated to lead to absurd
consequences, and was msnifestly contradictory to
O-lLAO 0~AoS aH1 1SNNN IA dhAh6 Ah1N
could be said for it was that it was a concession to
public feeling. but in this there was danger of ship
wreck of the Constitution. Government grants q
person n license to sell spirits for 81 900 cash,
guarantees him the right and privilege to do so, and
then in the same breath deprives him of the right TO
collect the pay for what it gives him the right to sell
This is clearly contrary to common right and reason,
and common law adjudges it void. This law, being
in restraint Of trade, is therefore unconstitutional.
By the license permission or. authority is given to do
q particular thing. in this case to sell ~spirituous
liquors. When a right or privilege is granted, all
that is necessary to the enjoyment Of that right or
privilege goes with it What enjoyment can there
be if your accounts are repudiated by the operation
of On unconstitutional Act,-the Government say
ing,-if you do sell under the license we have
granted to you and for which you have paid 81 900,
you shall not collect any debts contracted under it !;
our courts are barred to you. What but an empty
form, conveying nothing, is the privilege of selling,
or what use of selling if you cannot collect what
shall become due through the courts?- The right Of
sale carries with it the right Of getting pay for what
is sold. Government takes o valuable consideration,
guarantees the right to sell, and then takes away the
right Of collection. The law of '65 is radically in
consistent with and in contravention of the license
Act it is contrary to the principles of right, reason
anu JUSTICE 4 II - uncOncllIuIOnal anu VOlu. II
takes away a vested right. It is m~anifestly contrary
to the FIRST principles Of civil liberty, natural justice,
and the spirit of the Constitution and laws, that any
one citizen should enjoy privileges and advantages
which are denied to others under like circumstances,
or that any one should be subject to losses or
damage, from which all others, under like circum-
stances, are exempt. Quoted Articles l and IA Of
the Constitution.) 1t is contrary to common sense
to say that a mans right of property is not invaded
when his use and enjoyment of it are interdicted.
This law is contrary to the first principles of the Bill
Of Rights, ard q wrongful exercise of Legislative
Authority under Article AZ Of the Constitution. The
Legislature erred in its Judgment in passing this
law, and it is for the Court to say that the Act is in
consistent with the abstract principles Of natural
justice. The unconstitutionality Of the Act consists
in the obviously broad and exclusive disinction-in
the inequality Of the civil rights of citizens, and we
contend that the Constitution forbids any other
Legislation than such as recognizes the perfect equal
civil rights, privileges and immunities of all the
people of this Kingdom, and no law can deprive
them Of a legal right or debsl the prosecution of
their claims before a court or jury. When a law is
repugnant to q constitutional principle, the law must
give way.
So Mr.. W.. c. Jones, for plaintiff, in reply, after
alluding to the want of mutually between an
account for rent certain and an illegal and immoral
account, commended for the constitutionality of the
Act Of 1855 on the ground of policy. 1t is the duty
of all governments to protect society, pass laws for
the suppression of vice and crime, to arrest i'm
morality and to prohibit immoral practices and pur-
suits. The Legislative power is not limited or re-
stricted by the Constitution promulgated on the 10Th
of August, 1854. They not only have the power,
but it is their duty to protect the community against
great evil, by passing laws prohibiting or restrict
ing any immoral business or practice.
The retailing of spirits is an evil in society which
encourages drunkenness. vice and crime, and rapidly
'emoranzes the victims Of incorporate habits. The
errt