Smyrna times. [volume] (Smyrna, Del.) 1854-1987, 1881-05-11
Anti-Liquor Laws.
SENATOR BAYARD's OPPOSITION TO LOCAL.
OPTION ANSWERED BY A RESIDENT
OF THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA

The Herald Of the 18th ult., copies a
letter from Senator-Bayard, Of Delaware,
in which he states his objection to the
local option movement in his own State
The Delaware statesman Is justly held in
high esteem throughout the country, and
especially in the south If, therefore,
his argument goes forth Iuchallengrd
the effect may be to retard much needed
reform, which the people are calling for
i'll many different sections. The Sena
tors first Objection to local option laws
is that they are Of doubtful coustitu-
tionality." Did he forget, when he used
this argument, that the cOnstitutionality
of anti-liquOr laws has been presented to
the Supreme Court of the United states
at least three different times, and that in
each case they were sustained.
Ibis question was passed upon as
early as 1917, and in delivering his opin-
ion, Chief Justice fancy used this lang
uage: "And if any State deems the re-
tail and internal traffic in ardent spirits
injurious to its citizens, and calculated to
produce idlenesS, vice or debauchery,
see nothing in the Constitution of the
United States to prevent it from relating
and restraining the traffic or from pro-
hlbiting it altogether, if it thinks proper =
10th Howard, p. SD The question,
somewhat modified was before the SUI
preme Court i'll 1866. and the consttu-
tionality Of prohibitory legislation WAS a
second time affirmed. (5tn Wallace, PIP
AS, 476) In 1878, another case arose
under the then recently adopted fourteenth
amendment, which declares that mo
State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or i'm
munities of citizens of the United States g"
The Court held that the power OF a tate
to prohibit the sale of Intoxicating liquors
could not be questioned under the Con
stitutiOn, and that the right to sell such
liquors was not one of the privileges and
immunities guaranteed by the fourteenth
amendment to that instrument. lSth
Wallace, p. l29)
The second objection urged by Senator
Bayard is that local option being a plan
for submitting the law to Il popular vote,
defeats the principle of our Government,
which is representative in its character,
and places the law-maklng power in the
Legislature, and not in the people Was
the senator Ignorant OF the fact that some
of the highest tribunals in the land have
decided that a law passed by Legisla-
ture, to go into effect only when approved
by the popular vote, is not subversivc of
the representative theory of our Govern
ment? This identical question arose I'M
der the local option laws Of Maryland,
and the Court Of Appeals held that these
laws were constitutional and valid and
their going into effect and becoming
operative, being made dependent on the
result of popular vote, was not dele
CATION of legislative power to the people,
l42nd Md, p. 72) The same principle
was settled by the Virginia Court of APP
peaIs III 1855, when the question was
raised before them whether the Legisl;l-
ture could pass an act establishing free
school in particular district, and then
enact its existence as a law should he
made conditional upon its approval by the
people. The Judges then composing our
highest court,-as learned, | suppose, as
any who have ever adorned the bench of
Virginia,--all concurred in the opinion
tina, the act was n valid and constitutional
law. Judge Lee, in giving the opinion
OF the Court, declared, 80 say in such
case that the act is made by the voters
and not by the Legislature is to disregard
all proper distinctions. and INVOLVES an
utter confusion of ideas on the subject
O3th Grattan, p. 0l.) So that, in Vir-
GINA at least, the principle underlying the
prohibition of the liquuor traffic by local
option has already received the endorse
ment of her highest tribunal John Pol
lard, Jr, in Richmond IVA } Herald