The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1873-09-20
THE ABSORBING TOPIC.
PROGRESS OF TME LIQUOR CASES,


Continued Discussion.
rHx ARGUMENT OF THE HON. ALBERT q. !
P0RTER-NEw UNEXPECTED POINTS
m FAVOR OF THE CoNsTITUTToNALITY
OFTHE LAw-THE CASE TAKEN UNDER
AMUSEMENT BY THE COURT.
The Hon. Albert G. Porter in be-
half of the State presented the
closing argument yesterday, and it
is presented herewith in full:
May it please the Court: To
maintain public order is declared :
in the first clause Of the premable
10 the Constitution to be one of the
three great ends for which it was
The first section of that
instrument declares that all free
are instituted for the
peace, safety and well being Of the
people. To maintain public order
and to conserve the peace, safety,
and well-being of the people is,
therefore, q high duty with which
each department Of the State gov
ernment, within the sphere of its
appropriate functions, stands
charged That theintemperate use
Of intoxicating liquors is the great.
est of the obstacles to the mainten-
ance of public order; that more
than anything else it interferes with
the peace, safety and well being of
society, all candid men confess.
That it chiefly peoples our prisons;
that largo part Of the burdens
imposed upon society in maintain
ing Efficient police regulations in the
State, the counties, the townships
and cities, are directly owing Is
it; that it is the chief foe of the
household, upon the virtue and in
teligence of which alone can free
State repose that it makes home
the abode of poverty and ignorance
and brutality, and often seed plot
of crime-these things are as we'll
known as that the sun rises in the
morning and sets in the evening.
Whatever enactment, therefore,
comes from the Legislative depart
ment before the judiciary meant to
Strengthen the foundation of pub
lie order and to promote the peace,
safety and well being of the people,
by restraining or suppressing this
overshadowing evil, ought to be
met by the Judiciary charged with
the, ,upholding Of public order, with
earnest welcome, and not over
thrown unless liable to constitution
al objections that can not be over
come. From the beginning Of the
State, statutes meant to suppress
this source Of public disorder have
been on our statute books. The
business Of retailing spurious L.
quors has been from the first one
of State regulation, and efforts by
legiSlation have been repeatedly ex-
erted to suppress or restrain it.
This Court has held that q law
which might prohibit retailing al
together, is not liable to objection
as being repugnant to the constitu-
tion. The constitution of 1916,
containing q provision precisely
like that in the present one, con
corning the vesting of the legisla
tive power in the General Assem-
bly,. It's language was, s'The legis
lative power of this State shall be
vested in q General Assembly
which shall consist of Senate an6
q House of Representatives. -
Const. 1916, art. 8, sec. /. IS
So early as 1918 the Legislature
enacted law that no person should
sell liquors in a less quantity thar
quart at q time, without a license
from the County Board, which
could not be granted until he hat
produced q certificate of twelve re
spectacle householders that he wa
of good moral ch ,racter, and tina
it would be for the convenience o
travellers for him to be licensed
He was forbidden to sell liquors il
any quantity on Sunday, o: to an,
minor, apprentice or servant, with
out the consent of his parent o
master: or to any person in stat
of intoxication. He was ikewis
required to give a bond that b
would not permit any gambling o
disorderly conduct about his house
or other breach of the law. Law
of 1878, p. 296. In 1921 the
LAW WAS CHANGED
rs to require that the certificate o
which the license might be obtaine
to be signed by twelve respectabl
freeholders.
In 1882 the law was again chang
ed, by allowing the county board
to issue licenses, on the applicar
producing the certificate of twent,
four freeholders of his town {
township to his good moral chara
ter: but if the town or townshi
did no contain twenty four fre
holders who were inhabitants {,
perhaps many did not at that ear
day. the number might be comp,
ted from freeholders in the inm
diate vicinity; but license shoul
not be granted to any person res
ding within any town or townsh
where a majority of the freeholdel
reconstructed. Rec. r. S., 1888,
582, sec. S. This continued to
the law until 1843. And this Ia
was sustained by this Court
Woads vs.. Pratt, 5 Blackf., 377,
an opinion delivered by Judge S,
livan. The statement of the ca
by that honored Judge shows tn
a majority of the freeholders of
township had filed with the Boa
of commissioners general reno
STRANGE against the licensing of Al
Deraon, To retail 1iunora y, <ha <o,v