The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-03-19
PROHIBITION IN. IOWA.
Salient Points Of the Decision Affirming the
COnstitutionality of the Law.

DEs Mo1xas, March 16-The Supreme Court
has rendered decision affirming the constitu.
tionality Of the new prohibitory law and provid-
ing means for its speedy enforcement The
court sustained the decision of the lower court
virtually declaring that saloons may be enjoined
as nuisances, aud that any citizen has the right
to apply for an injunction to restrain any one
from selling, manufacturing. or keeping for sale
any Intoxicating beverages, including ale, wine
and beer. The only exception made is in certain
cases where permits have been issued by county
boards of supervisors for certain purposes de-
fined in the statute The court holds that the
natural operation of the new prohibitory law
makes the saloon nuisance whenever it is used
for the purpose of evading or violating said law;
that the same relief is open to any citizen as m
case of existence of any other nuisance-nameiy:
proceedings in equity for it's abatement. The
effect of this decision will be to give any citizen
an opportunity to close up a saloon without trial
by Jury and if the saloon keeper persists after
ininnctio. has issued he can be punished forcon-
tempt with a fire of 81, 600 and Imprisonment OF
six months. Prohibiiionsts claim that they can
close every saloon in the State.
Judge Rothrock announced the opinion After
citing the provisions Of the statutes relating to
the manufacture orrele of Intoxicating liquors
as a nuisance. thst cyi1ion states that the stat
z1Er-7PsaiplT dE6rizes any citizen of the county
to maiptaiT%sss0n, and there can be no denial OF
the right of action unless il be held that the Leg
islature had no constitutional power to enact the
law. Tho jurisdiction of courts of equity TO en-
Join and abste nuisances is of very ancient orr
gin. The jurisdiction is applicable not only to
public nuisances, strictly so called, but also to
purprestures upon public rights and property.
This general rule cannot be disputed, and courts
of equity in nearly all the States entertain ju-
rigdiction to restrain and abate nuisances either
at the suit of public prosecutor or at the IN
stance of a private individual who shows that he
sustains some special injury by the establishment
or existence of the nuisance Let it be conceded
says the opinion, that courts OF equity before
the adoption of the Constitution declined to
entertain action of injunction to restrain and
abate nuisances in cases where no property
rights were involved. The legislative history of
this State, and the jurisdiction entertained by
its courts do not warrant the conclusion that
there is nolegslative discretion iii regard to what
controversies shall be of equitable cognizance
Since the adoption of the Constitution jury has
been allowed in action for divorce, and this
right has been taken away. so IN cases OF fore
closure Of mortgage and mechanics liens. We
are not, then, required TO examine the Jaws in
force at the time the Constitution was adopted,
and hold that in every case which was then
triable by jury the right to such trial remains
invioate. Such q construction or the constltu-
tional provision involves too narrow view of leg
isative power 1t being conceded that q court
of equity had jurisdiction in case of nuisance,
we can see no invasion of the rights of the citi-
zen by an act of the Legislature extending to
cases where no distinct property right is in
volved, and we may say here that the distinction
thought to be made between nuisances
where property-rights are and are not
involved Is very , limited, narrow,
order to succeed in the defense that the iDiunc
ton is an attempt to enforce criminal law by
civil process demands in effect that the courts
must establish the principle that because the
nuisance complained of is crime it is entitled
to favor and protection in q court of eql -.
Such a rule would not command the respect or
approval of any one. 1t is further claimed that
the statute is invalid because it authorizes an
action to be brought by any citizen of the county
without showing that he is especially damaged
by the nuisance. What we have said with ref
erence TO the power of the Legislature to en-
large the jurisdiction of q court of equity will
apply with the same force to this objection. 1t
is surely within the power of the Legislature TO
designate the persons at whose suit nuisance
may be enjoined and abated The reason
of the rule which formerly obtained that
q private action will not lie for public
nuisance without special damages, was that to
authorize private actions would create multi
plicity of suiJs, one being as well entitled to
bring an action another. We are strongly
inclined to think that in this case decree for
the defendant would be par TO any other like
action for an Injunction upon evidence OF sales
Of liquor within the same time as is embraced in
this action. The plaintiff is by law made the
representative Of the public in bringing and
maintaining action. The law having de-
nounced the defendants calling and occu-
patton nuisance. in the judgment of the law
he was every day doing acts which produced
great and irreparable injury to the plaintiff and
other eitzons-injuries that, in the Judgment Of
the Legislature, ought to be eEjoined and pre-
vented By an action in equity No earthly power
is able TO repair the injury which may be done
by the maintenance of the nuisance from the
commencement of the action till the final de.
crees, and for that reason atemporary injunction
Is authorized by law.