The Wichita city eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1872-1883, 1880-05-20
TIE AMExpNtENr.
THE VIEWS oFEx-G OvERNoR CHARLEs
ROBINsoN.
WILL THE AxzENDxENr PROVE 10 Be
IN THE INTKREsT OF TEMPER
ANCE.

touching the proposed constitutional
Amendment and its effect ON temper
snce in the State, as it does upon any
question of public interest. The opin-
ions advanced were not hasty or un-
considered, but were conclusions made
up after hearing both sides, aud after
giving the matter no little thought.
The question at issue is not one whether
temperance is q virtue to be encouraged
but whether the proposed amendment
would abolish intemperance or cure any
Of its evils. Notwithstanding many of
the ablest :'tctotal" lawyers Of the State
entertain the same views expressed by
the EAGLE, several readers took ofense,
and in one township, at more than one
meeting, disputants went SO far as to
say that the EAGLE was opposed tenn
pcrance. Every editor and public writ
err not only must, but can well afford to
abide his time. Misrepresentation
counts as nothing against honest con-
victions boldly expressed. We have
only to add now that We have not
changed our mind. We believe the
amendment, if inforced, would legiti-
matcly have just the effect that We then
set forth Our belief is that the amend
ment will be carried, and that tho call
for new constitutional convention will
also be endorsed, in which event the
next Legislature viii, in view of q new
constitution, refuse to enact any law to
enforce the new amendment. The
question will then come up in the Con-
stitutiontional Convention and settle
one way or the other, we hope, and on
the side Of good Government.
We publish the views herewith OF Ex-
Governor Charles Robinson, as cores
ponding with those set forth by the
EAGLE. To say nothing of the high
character and conceded ability Of Gov.
Robinson, there is one fact that cannot
be questioned. He is teetotaler of
the old school, firm, conscientious,
consistent temperance advocate, and q
man who viii express his convictions
against any odds. We hope every man
who has the interest of temperance at
heart will read the Governors letter:
LAWRENCE, May 9, 1880.
To the Editor Of the Champion.
find in the Lawrence Journal COM
munication from Rev. Pardee Butler.
heartily endorse all Mr.. b. says of the
evils of intempcrance, and believe it is
the duty of the State to lessen those
evils to the greatest possible extent.
But if he tavOrs the amendment, de-
sire to say word to him and all tenn
perance men.
The avowed object Of this amendment
is to aid the Legislature and the people
in suppressing the sale of intoxicating
liquors for injurious purposes. The
question is, does it or will it. ifadopted,
accomplish that object? Writers upon
Constitutional law say that without
the Constitutional limitations the pow
er of the Legislature to make laws
would be absolute" That ''the forms
prescribed by Constitutions for lcgisla-
tive action are in the nature of limita-
tons upon its authority. The Consti-
;utional provisions which establish them
are equivalent to declaration that the
the legislative power shall be exercised
under these forms, and shall not be ex
crcised under any other"
Without Constitutional limitations it
is well settled that the Legislature has
absolute control of the whole subject of
the manufacture and sale of alchoholic
liquors. 1t can prohibit their sale abb
| sOlutcly or partially. 1t can prohibit
their sale as beverage and provide that
one man in the community may be Sc
lected to sell for other purposes, and
prohibit all others.
What are the Limitations" upon the
Legislature in the proposed amendment?
First, the Legislature shall not, by law,
permit the manufacture and sale of Ii
quors for any purpose except three, but
it shall be its duty to prohibit it. Sec
Ond' the manufacture and sale for the
three purposes named is reserved to the
people alike. A Constitutional limita-
ton must apply equally to all citizens
of the State, and if that instrument says
! a traffic is legitimate, and the IIegisla-
turc cannot prohibit it to one person,
it cannot to another. On these points
| find 10 difference of opinion among
legal gentlemen with whom have con-
versed. That l might ascertain the
views of the profession l iropounded
the following questions TO tho leading
lawyers in the State whose names and
address had:
LIST. Should this amendment be adopt
ed, could the Legislature prohibit the
sale CT liquor for the purposes named
in the exception, either directly or in
directly, by license tax or otherwise!
I'd. Could one man only be permitted
to sell for these purposes in the State or
county, and all others be prohibited:
Sd. Would every citizen have an
equal right to engage in the manufac-
turc and sale of liquors for the purpose
named in the exception?
4th. Does the present dramshop act
absolutely prohibit the sale of intoxi-
eating liquors for all purposes, unless
specially authorized by the people of a
municipality
Within twenty-four hours after mail
ing these interrOgatories I received a
reply from Judge Howard, of this city,
from which | will quote. Judge II. is
not only a member Of the bar, but is O
superior scholar and educator. His an
swers are as follows:
First question-no.
Sccond--no.
There must be uniformity YES
Fourth-y irtually, yes. The amendment
would fcks from The LSgisiaturs po,cer ITO the
extent Of the pr0yiso,j which Il ao,c has. in
the direction of prohibitory legislation, and
add aotiins to it..
'Suppo>e the amendment should be afiop.- |
ed Then suppose distillery should be start
ed on lot next TO Gov. st. Johns residence
for the manufacture Of alcohol. Suppose. |
then, that the Governor, in his righteous in
dignation, should attempt 10 suppress the |
dis;llrry. The proprietor planting himself
On the exception would say: II am manu- |
featuring alcohol for medical scientific and |
mechanical proposes, which your amend |
ment says | may do.'
The presumption Of law would be that the |
distiller was doing legitimate business.
from the fact that he claimed to stand on the !
Constitution of the state. which would give /
him a right TO manufacture for the purpose
named in the exception. Here the whole /
TO show that the distiller was manufacturing
alcohol for Other purposes than those made
in the proyiso. OF course he could not prove
the distiller's asfires. only by circumstances.
To do this, suppose the Governor should
prove that some one had bought or drank
alcohol made at the distillery. "a q 5ersrags.
What then. the distiller says: Il did not
make II TO be used as beverage; l did not
ss't il for that purpose. II it was used for
the Governor would be beaten at his own
Gal IL rnf,i al..sa he nv