Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1883-1888, 1883-10-04

ton that the Legislature would not SET
tie for them. A year and eight onths
elapsed from The cate of submission until
wss . ceaaelets sgita.ion Of the question.
There was not man, woman or child 10 the
State. capable of thinking, who did not
think deeply upon the subject: 1t vas dis.
cussed in every church and school house, IN
the home, in the corn and wheat fields, in
the gambling dens and saloons. Men and
women talked 1t over at the 6reside.
preachers discussed it from the pulpit, and
the saloons and dives throughout the State.
Money and whisky we're freely used o.
one side, while reason and conscience were
appealed to on the other. The temperance
people appealed u the brains and hearts Of
the people, while the saloon keepers and
their allies appealed to their pockets and
stomachs. 1t has been charged that the
people acted without: carefully considering
the questiou,-that il was hastily done,
therefore should be reconsidered. These
statements are utterly false. The supreme
court Of Ksu5as sums up the history of In
period in the following language:
NEARLY two years elapsed between the
time the proposition passed the legislature
and tine day of the popular vote. During
this time the question was not forgotten. 1t
was discussed In every household and meet
ing. The State was thoroughly csnvassed;
its merits and dement's we're presented and
supported By ali possible Arguments. Pull
pin, press, and platform were full Of it. Il
was assumed on all sides that the question
was before the people for decision. Tbs
contest was warm and active" ETC., etc.
Psohibition amendment Gases, "a Kansas. 40.
At the close OF this contest, tbs amend
ment was adopted by the people, by a ms
j)rity CT seveven thousand, nine hundred
and ninety eight votes, and or the 23i day
OF November, 1880, the bosrd of csnvassers
declared the same part Of the constitution
of Kansas. The objection has been raised
that the vote for the amendment did not
constitute msjoriiy of ali the voters in the
State. This objection cannot be considered,
for the following reason. The constitution
does no. require that an amend
ment shall receive such a major
ity. The people must take notice of an
election In this State and vote. II they do
not do SO, they are es.epped from complain
ing OF the result. Those who do not vote
are in default. Those VINO exercised their
right have RICH. to have their will carried
out. The present Governor of this State
holds his Office by vir;ue of an election
wherein he received nearly Ten thousand
votes less than were cast for the prohibitory
amendment, and his election is not infested
because he failed to get majority
of all the votes in Kansas. There
is neither point nor sense in the objection.
The men who had been defeated at the polls
made haste to transfer their fight to the
courts; not being able to obtain their will at
the polls, they now propose to defeat the
popular will BY q resort to the techuicali-
| ties of the law. Before four months had
| pass. ID there were four cases ready to test
| Inc vIlidity Of this amendment-two from
Lynn county, one from Cowley and one
| from shawnee. The saloon keepers oil
the Safe employed eminent counsel to
present their cause, and tie four cases
were presented to the court at the February
term, A. d. 1881. The Legislature was in
$. IS ion at the time, and delayed legislation
! until the latter part of the session - learn
the views OF the eour. upo1 THIS amend
ment. Ever question raised b. the saloon
keepers against the amendment was met
aud answered successfully, and the court
declared the amendment legally adopted,
and part of the constitution. In addition 10
| the other questions Iaised there was one
! hat I desire to adv vert TO for moment. On
pa re 722. of "a ksnss rs, the question is pre-
| .nted AID answered "a the opinion OF the
court IS f1llo@s;
~ fnal srslnient a.-sinst inc V...:::.ity Of
this amendment, is thai it is in conflict with
the l4.h amendment OF the Federal Consti-
\ tNnunaai hoy al iur,s
argument, b,sed on the assumption that
this amendment was taken substantially
from the Bill Of Rights of the Safe of New
York, and that the scope ard effect of such
amendment hsd been determined Nv the
Court of Appeals of the State OF Ne@ York,
| in the care Of Nynehsmmer Us. the People.
13N. Y, 37S, and the Metrop1l!tan Board
of Excise We. Barrie, "a \ u COZ. A
full an wer TO this srzuntn. ne
unanimous decision Of the Supreme Court -
the United States. the Anal arbiter 10 all
questions of alleged infractions of the federal
constitution, in the case Of the beer company
VS.. Massachusetts,. Otto, (97 U. S.) Is. .
decision since the adoption Of the 18th
amendment, and re-afirming the decision
in Bsrtemeysr vs.. Iowa, Is Wall. l29. in
which the court decides that State law
prohibiting the manufacture and sale of
intoxicating liquor Is not repugnant to
any clause Of the United States constitu-
ton. Comment on or argument to sup
port that decision, would be manifestly
superfuous and unnecessary work."
To make thi; point clear to those who
are not lawyers, 1 desire 10 quote the 18th
amendment of the Federal Cons titution,
and clause from the Massachusetts, and
Iowa cases, to show clearly what the
United States Supreme court has dscided:
"Ali persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdio-
ton thereof, are citizens Of the United
States and of the State wherein they
reside. No Stste shall make or en-.
force any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immuniiies Of citizens of the
United 5tstes; nor shall any State deprive
any person Of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law, or to deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection Of the laws."-14h
Amendment the u s Constitution.
Now, the point made on this amend
ment was, that the right to sail intoxicat-
ing liquors was one Of the privileges and
immunities OF citizens of the United
States which the States were forbidden TO