The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1885-04-14
THE LIQUOR LAW
sutherland Makes a
judge assyT Speech Against it,
.pEAS CORPUS CASES.
H.. legislatures Right to
Attacking e Law in an Exhaustive
Pass - Argument.

hole of the afternoon Session %
The VIZ occupied Yesterday in hearing
court wa s,aot, in the cases OF Messrs.
be ISL. 81 and Haynes, county liquor deal
colln iaanrisoned by justices OF the peace
e'' IL uiag withoutlicenses- and brought
ot seIi ,.'dge Zane on writs Of habeas
teiors 'u Sutherland Il Mcbride repre-
OPS ,be liquor men and sheeks &
,en,5p Judge Snow and l. M, wa adj
Ba ., nnpnty prosecuting attorney Tor
the couI Sutherland, in a speech which
juoS ,,blv the most extensive argu-
pto pa delivered against the Honor
1en' - -, me case. The follow Is
laV ope nf his brief and argument;
~ o.it;oner was restrained of his
The P S,- virtue of conviction under
1 1osIGioT ~ Law of 1882; ,.,
hs LT Sase his right to be discharged on
We u uSiidit of that act. We contend
that II !. Is Ssro o the manufacture and
~ ~ enf0rce the payment OF
Iams, Section and 10 OF 1857, p:Sg.
Dq qbs common law right to pursue TINS
laS sis is taken away. The liberty TO
ousll na IN i il must be acquired by COM
elsa5e - with certain requirements.
pyle PYLE mist be a petition designating a
Ing s;s, lar place Of proposed business,
2al' ling Of a bond with sureties, the
iDe I sa.nt9 Of the sum exacted and the
F ayliTn' of A license. The license IS
lo.al Of course after complying with
s ls, ~ nrocedent conditions. Until they
l ~. eaRmplied with, there is total prohlbl-
lan II can only be taken on by OBJ
..in;ng 3 license. The conditions are
. .IirS and precise; they apply to
a.. ..,-hd On compliance with these
. ,1dit;ons the prohibition ceases, All
l rOnu,t.s are subject to certain uniform
.S5 universal regulations. There is no
~; i.ar s,ii tn he exercised under the act
.roant in fixing the amount to be paid
. NH The amount of the bond-penalties.
The The petitioner is under conviction 1or
Waiting the prohibition. There IS no
, .sylIrI1 to give bond, nor to pay the
a., ,y,-, ~ license money. They are merely
'aal ms TO remove the prohibition. II
rrobibition is not within the compe-
,,nce If the Territorial Legislature, no
means nsed be resorted to to get rid OF
Il It's simply void. 800
1.-THE Territorial Legislature IN 1857
had no power to exact prohibition on
his subject as a primary object, nor as
means Of cOercing the payment of
roney. The legislation of Congress is
upreme TWAS then, and still is, in
snsistent with prohibition. Congress
has power to legislate on all the in
tual affairs of a Territory, and
laiUUaf power OF law-maklng being de-
nYed from Congress must be exercised
n subOrdination to its superior will
when expressed In a statute.
The legislation OF a Territory may be
mnuled or supplemented by acts of
congress, but, on the other hand, the
Nb Of Congress are not subject to be
modified or supplemented by Territorial
sltltOS. The two legislatures do not
possess concurrent legislative power.
They are not coordinate. When Con-
gss speaks by enactment, all citizens
n the Territory and all Territorial
iers, including the Territorial Legis-
Alre,, are subjects. Even in respect
o"rightful subjects Of legislation" the
'ssature Of the Territory must defer
aVOngress, and refrain from action, SO
Eg Congress has asserted its para
count authority. Congress, before
NJ had provided for the levy and col
1a9n Of tax on manufacturers and
tldoB OF intoxicating drinks. 1t
2ieoY, within its domain, recognizes
los kinds Of business as legitimate,
aISlt does the other manufactures
~ Italics. which it specifies and puts
1ld contribution to the national
l'33safy. Prohibition of a business
Nv a1aton of it are not consistent;
eTnce contrary intents.
i1alOn OF business proceeds on
i. sumption of its existence during
gefOd for which the taxes are eX-
va TITS founded on the elementary
,--lple that private interests, enjoy
Fsal protection, should bear their
~ ~ snare OF the public burdens neces-
~ ~ imposed to sustain the govern
'i ~ which protects.
SSloEliOn vs.. Rock Co. 8 Wis. 419.
T-foaghs on Tax 132.
~, i-s quty is only correlative to the
H. ...e VI protection. Therefore, when
.'ernment eIacts the performance
aT s YAK paying duty in respect to a
dI business 60 nOnline it must
ss ss5I.lled that a correlative right is
srs,u lsl, and the reciprocal duty of
'i.l-ehI to protect is acknowledged.
nav purporting to levy a tax
p.,15sSy cccupatlon, not supposed or
70 exist, would be absurd,
ssa , van thing, not judicially attrib-
a Ne ~ ~ legislature acting within the
Ia, ~, i's powers. Prohibition COM
L.. ual The business shall not be
Nas's e sE that the prohibited
4'1jSt ,i Snau not exist. Congress
4 is s'aluty itself if it should at one
ci,plossIhe time prohibit and tax &
Onl, BUSINESS. 1t has enacted tax
N I va and 1t can not be stultifed
lrip Say manner antagonized by a
sDt I Ta. y legislative body. Any at
storyy 'Ue latter to do so would be
psid Is = % be paid in advance. After
1 b1s; S,.u received as and for tax
Ia t6atti e announced by the tax
Ayop IN ne .t intends to engage in and
sa bs sa tne form which the taxing
1t Which prescribed, if the govern
inte ,T,, Yields that power should al
'ldOn cue col9, and on the pretext of an
Of thooV .ltehporaneous with the re
iatss tsr * thwart the prospective
.s.e ' "a ed, it would be a shockine
q tie oSo ..uouS dealing. As it is {
1leeled IN Ii .9ttacture and traffic, ant
as a ny n. ta.uvanee, the government
III (ea later of common honesty
q an y, abstain firm, +ba ovar