Sword and shield. (Clinton, Miss.) 1885-1888, 1885-05-02

denlng itself with enormous. taxa
tion, for the support of the poor, the
insane, and the idiOtic and at the
same time denies the light to remove
the cause, which makes this enor-
moGs public expense necessary. The
primary end ofall government is the
protection Of human rights. In or
der to protect these rights, great
public burdens in the shape of taxa
tion are necessarily imposed. Is not
that the wiSest legislation, and the
one most in conformity to the ends
and purposes Of government,
which furnishes the maximum
Of protection for the minimum of
taxation? This is the direct result
to be achieved by the Prohibition of
the making and vending of intoxica-
ting liquors. Is the end worth the
effort? Will the victory be worth
the struggle it will cost
PROHIBIT0RY LAWS CONSTITUTIONAL.
The question Of the constitution
ality of prohibitory liquor laws has
been SO often decided. that it may
be considered now, as beyond con
troyersy. The power to establish
ordinary regulations of police has
been left with the States exclusively;
and laws prohibiting altogether the
manufacture and sale of intoxicants
as u beverage are considered voted
police regulations for the prevention
of intemperance, pauperism and
crime, and for the abatement of
nuisances.
eve cannot doubt" says the Su-
preme Court of Vermont, 'That the
law in question falls within that
large class Of powers, which are es-
sential to the regulation, promotion
and preservation Of the morals,
health and general well-being and
prosperity of the people Of this
State; and that it may in an eminent
degree, be regarded as police reg
ulation as much 50 as the laws re-
straining the sale of diseased provis-
ions, or the quarantine laws, which
restrain the natural liberty OF the
subject and authorize the destruc-
tion of his property, which may be
supposed to be impregnated with
contagious disease. And it may
well be inquired, which is the more
important and vital to the well-be
ing of the body polite, to prevent
the spread Of a contagious disease,
which affects the body, or the spread
of a moral contagion, which results
indirectly from the traffic and more
directly from the unrestrained use of
intoxicating liquors?"
The Supreme Court of the United
States has decided that a law prohib-
iting the manufacture and sale of in
toxicating liquors, is a measure of
police regulation, looking to the pre-
servation of the public morals, and
that it is not repugnant to any clause
of the national constitution, but a
valid exercise of the police power of
the State. Undoubtedly a prohibi-
tory liquor law might be 50 drawn
as to be obnoxious to certain consti-
tutional principles which would in
validate it. And in this connection
many interesting questions suggest
themselves, which neither the ma
ture nor the limits Of this article
permit us to consider. We may in
some later article review the whole
subject of the constitutionality not
merely of the prohibitory but Of the
liquor law in general. 1t is sutfi-
cient to the present purpose, that it
has been settled by the adjudica-
ton of our highest courts that laws
prohibiting the domestic traffic in
liquors are valid as an exercise of the
legitimate powers Of the State.