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

I2s.
In the Massachusetts, case, the court
used the following Language in October,
1877:
"Whe,ever differences of opinion may
exist az TO The extent and boundaries OF
the police power, and however difficult
it may he 10 render a satisfactory dehni-
tion of il, there seems t. be no doubt that
il does extend TO the protection Of lives,
health and properly OF the citiz and
the preservation of good order and The PUB
JicTora ~The Legislature cannot by any
contrsc. diveet itself Of the power to pro-
vide for these otjeets. They belong EN-
phaticaily 10 that class of objects which
demand the application Of the maxium
.Saiss popsh suprema tE (the pub
lie good is the supreme law;
and thew are TO be attained
anu provided for by such appropriate
mears as the legislative discretion may de
wise That discretion can no more be bar
gained away than the pc ser itself Since
we have ALREADY held in Bartemey r pS. IoUa
that, as measure Of police regulation,
looking 10 4 preservation Of public NOR
ais, d State Jaw pre- hi ling the msnufact-
ure and ssle Of intoxicating liquors is not
repugpsrt to any clause of the Constitution
of the United S ates, we zee nothing in the
present case that can afford any sufficient
ground for disturbing the decision of the
Supreme court Of Massachusetts"
"If the public safety or the pubic morals
require the dlseontinuance OF any manu-
fac.ure or trsfii =, the hand of the iegi.la-
ture cannot be stsyet from providing for
its discontinusnce by any incidental in
convenience which individ lals or CORPORA
TORS moy sufe-. All rights are held Sub
ject to the police power Of the State."-7th
OF o, 25.
The Beer Company was chartered by
the State, and claimed that by reason of
the charter the State could not strike
down their business by prohibiJory leg;s
lation. Hence the language Of tie court
about contracting any, ublic duties.
What becomes Of the doctrine OF the per-
solal liberty to sell liquor, in view of the
decisions above quoted, and what fear need
we have tina, Senator vest and the United
STATES Brewers Association will strike down
our law by the Salina case which they are
taking to the cGited States court, to try this
same question over again2 The Supreme
court o Kansas overturned, in the prohib
itory amendment cises, the doctrine OF The
personal Liberty TO sell Gqsor, and the
Supreme court of the CaiIsd States had
long sgo settled it. The man who talks O,
such thing now Is not sincere, or is not
well informed.
As soon as the prohioitory amendment
ossss were decided, the legislature Of 1881
passed the prohlbiiory liguor law. sss
passed in the Senate b. vote Of 80 for and 7
against Ia the Houss there we're 100 for.
and % a.'sinst Not voting, in The Senate,
L; inthe House, IL. There we're 1872 votes
for the law, and 80 sgainst it. Out Of l76
votes the total number in the Sen.
ate and the House, the law received 1872
just three four he OF the entire IeyisIa-
ture. In the House, out Of 1876 Votes there
were % 2gsinst it, Governor Click being
one Of the gallant %, pr,minent in his
opposition 90 any egislatlon 70 carry on,
the vii of the people The saloon-keepers
of he State did ali 10 their powe to IRE
vert this legislation; hut, failing here as
they had before the people, they again
resorted to the c5urts 10 strike down
this law. Four cases were prepared for
this purpose in Lesvenwortb, ard four cases
went up from Shawnee county, raking fore
and aft TO md some constitutional defect
in this law. The cases We're considered
together at the June term, 1881, of the |
Supreme court, and the law was Upheld |
One of the points made in these cases was. |
thst the law restricted the sale of liquor
TO druggists, and thus declared many
ether persons from engaging in a business |
which was profitable, and by some de-
sired. This is another phase of the per- |
sonsl liberty question, and the court an
kwe,7 the objection on page 76l. Of 18Th |
fXsisos ~ r7IowE.
"Tu!s ohjeclon is not very s.renu9usly |
urged, and cannot be sustained. IL will |
not be doubted that the police p5wer Of |
the State = broad enough and strong
enough 10 uphold any reasonable restrlc-
tior,s Gud limitations on the keeping, use
e. Jr safe o. any substance whose keeping. |
use IT gale involves danger to the general |
public. The storage OF powder, or ex |
plosive or highly rfarmah.e OILS may be i
forbidden Hithin { o. limi's. The iegis !
isiure NAV r,qli railroads to fence taer |
tracks; dangerous machinery to !
bs ereTywheTs enclosed; roisons |
to be labeled when sold; the practice OF
ary procession reqgirins i'll and knew |
edge 10 be confined to those who have |
pas sed certain examination and pursued
gertain course of study. By virtue of
The same poFer, i. may commit the sale
of liquor 10 any particular clsss Of per-
sons which, by reason Of its special train
ine and habits, it may deem peculiarly
fiited for such duty.
No law of this kind interferes with indi-
vidual liberty in its true sense. Slch laws
protect the public only in such matters
involving risk and danger from the acts OF
unfit and improper persons. They cannot
be sdjuoged class legislation in any objsc.
tionsble and unconstitutional sense of the
term"
Twice, therefore has the infamous doc
trine of the personal liberty to sell liquor
been stricken down by the strong, Judi
cial arm of the State of Kansss. Twice
has the legislature passed upon the ques-
ton by an overwhelming vote. fret in
submitting the proposition and then in |
passing the law; and the people. by a fair
and honest vote, have made it a part of
our organic law, that the personal liberty |
to sell intoxicating liquors at saloon |
counter shall not exist in the State of
Ksneas.
At each of these trials of this question,
the liquor sellers and their allies have had |
their day in court; they have been repre-.
sented, and have been fairly beaten in every |
contesf Onr proh ihitorv n atute sent into