Daily Republican., 1881-05-05
ANTI.LIQUOR LAWS.
Senator Bayard's opposition to LO.
cal option answered by a Resi-
dent the state OF Virginia
From the Richmond Herald.

cal Option answered by n Resi-
dent of the state OF Virginia.
From the Richmond Herald.
The Herald of the 7th ult., copies a
letter from Senator Bayard, Of Della
ware, 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
unchallengcd, the effect may be TO retarl
a much needed reform, which the peo-
pie are calling for in many different
sections. The Senator's first objection
to local option laws is that they are OF
doubtful conStitutionality," Did he
forget, when he used this argument.
than the constituiionality OF anti-li-
quor laws has been presented to the Su-
prene Court OF the United States at
least three different times, and that in
each case they were sustained.
This question was passed upon as
early as 1847, and in delivering his
opinion, Chief Justice Taney used this
language: "And if any State deems
the retail and internal traffic in ardent
spirits injurious to its citizens, and cal
cuated to produce idleness, vice or de-
bauehery, I see nothingin the Constitu-
ton of the United States to prevent it
from relating and restraining the traffic
or from prohibiting it altogether, if it
thinks proper" (jth Howard, p. 577. }
The question, somewhat modified was
before the Snrreme Court again in 1866,
and the constitutionality Of prOhibitOry
legislation was u second time affirmed.
(5th Wallace, PIP. AS, E6) III 1873,
another ease arose under the then re-
Gently adopted fourteenth amendment,
which declares that "no State shall
make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities Of
citizens Of the United States. The
Court held that the power Of State 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 imlnunities guaranteed by the
fourteenth amendment to that instru-
lnrnt. (1Sth Wallace, p. I'D
The second objection urged by Scna-
tor Ravard is that local option being a
plan for submitting the law toa popu-
lar vote, defeats the principle Of our
Government, which is representative in
its character, and places the wmak-
ing power in the Legislature, and not in
the people. Was the Senator ignorant
Of the fact that some of the highest tri-
bunalS in the land have decided that a
law passed by y Legislature, 10 go into
effect only y when approved by the popu-
lar vote, is not subvcrSiVe OF the repre-
sentative theory Of our Government?
This identical question arose under 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 opera
tive, being made dependent on the re-
suit Of popular vote, was not dele
CATION of legislative power to the peO-
pie, (42nd Nd, p. ~ The same prin-
ciple was settled by the Virginia Court
Of Appeals in 1885, when the question
was raised before them whether the
Legislature could pass an act establish
ing free school in particular dis
trict, and then enact that its existence
as q law should be made conditional
upon it's approval by the people. The
Judges then composing our highest
court, as learned, | suppose, As any
who have ever adorned the bench of
Virginia,-ali concurred in the opinion
that the act was n valid and coustitl-
tional law. .Iadge Lee, in giving the
opinion Of the Court, declared, "Io say
in such a ease that the act is made by
the voters and not by the Legislature,
is TO disregard all proper distinctions,
and involves in utter confusion OF ideas
on the subiec'." N3th Grattan, p. 9l.)
So that, in Virginia at least, the prinri-
pie underlying the prohibition of the
liquor traffic by local option has already
received the endorsement Of her highest
tribunal. JOHN POLLARD, JR.