The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-12-26
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.
Control of the Liquor Traffic.


measure of reform will yet be evolved. The
good sense of the American people has never
failed them when emergencies arose requiring the
exercise of the highest wisdom and it will not
fail to find way, in due time, to stop the raw
ages Of the dram-shop. Scores of conflicting
-saws and plans are suggested and urged. All
win be duly considered. and then the common
sense Of the country will be sure to select that
which will accomplish the desired end. At pres
ent ii looks as though the final solution of the
hard problem of how to deal with tho liquor
traffic is about to be solved by the adoption of
laws in the several States with the following
features:
First-High license
Second-CiYil damages.
Thrd-Loeal option.
Fourth Absolute prohibition Of the sale of in
toXicating liquors to habitual drunkards.
A law combining these four features will
probably do all the good it is possible for any law
to accomplish. Against the feature Of high
license the objection is urged that it makes the
state partner in the profits Of the liquor traffic.
This view might be urged with some plausibiiity
if it were possible for the state to effectually
prohibit the traffic. But since it is known to
everyone that liquor will be sold in certain locali
ties in spite of any law that be made, is it
not both wise and right to burden the traffic in
such localities with high lieense9 After all, it is
practically only question as to whether the
traffic shall be carried in these localities
without molestation be restrained by high
license. Surely no true temperance man ought
to hesitate between these alternatives The
very moment pubcsentlmentl Is formed IN any
locality that would make prohibition effectual,
then the feature of local option will enable the
people to put an end to both the traffic
and high license there. What more can
the most jealous temperance advocate ask?
The feature of civil damages has been tried in
many of the States and has proved most pow
erful restraint on the liquor traffic. New York
has, for more than ten years, maintained THIS
feature in her temperance legislation, her courts
have rgidly enforced it in letter and spirit and
no one would now have the hardihood to
propose its repeal. 1t simply makes the seller
of Intoxicating liquors and the of the
building where sold liable for all damages that
may result to any one from the sale of intoxi-
eating liquor, whether the sale be lawful or IN
lawful This ought long. ago have been held to
be the law without any statute, for whoever
i. sel]s liquor to drunkard is guilty Of criminal
earelessness; and in all other cases carelessness
has long been a foundation for the recovery OF
damages by those who are injured in conse-
quence of it If one is injured through the care
lessness of the employees of railroad company,
the company is muleted in heavy damages Why
d not the rule where injury results from the
sale OF intoxicating liquors!
. To give some idea of the manner in which the
eyildamage law is regarded and treated by the
highest court of New York, quote the fol-
lowing from the decision in Bertholf vs. O'Reiley
n New York Reports, page 500, tlS79l:
"The question we are now to determine is
whether the Legislature has power to create a
cause of action for damages in favor of aperson
injured IN person or property by the act OF an
person. against the owner of real
property, whose only connection with the in
S,1rx- ic{h bot ha1 no vhoro tho
liquor causing the intoxication was sold or given
away, with knowledge that Intoxicating liquors
were to be sold thereon To realize the full
force of this inquiry. it is to be observed that
the leasing of premises to be used for the sale of
liquors is lawful act. not prohibited oy this or
any oSher statute. The liability of the landlord
is not made to depend upon the nature of the act
OF the tenant bat exists irrespective Of the fact
whether the sale or giving away of the liquor
was lawful unlawful; that is whether it was
authorized by the license law of the
State or was made in violation OF that law.
Nor does the liability depend upon any question
of negligence in the landlord in the selection of
tenant, or Of the tenant in selling the liquor.
Although the person to whom liquor is sold is
at the time apparently man OF sober habits
: and, so far the vendor knows. whose conduct
IS habitually controlled by his reason and judg
ment. yet if it turns out that the liquor sold
causes contributes to the intoxication of the
person to whom the sale or gift is made, and IN
der the influence of which he commits an injury
lord are, by the act. made jointly and severally
responsible. The question whether the act
der consideration is valid exercise of legislative
power is to be determined solely by reference to
constitutional restraints and proh billions. The
legislative power has no other limitation. If an
\ act stand when brought to the test of the
Constitution, the question of its validity is at an
Rnd and neither the executive nor judicial
Fdepartment of the government can refuse to recog
nize enforce it, Tho theory that laws may
be declared void when deemed to be opposed to
natural justice and equity, although they do not
violate any constitutional provision, has some
support in the dicta of learned judges but has
not been approved, so far we know, by any
authoritative adjudication, and is repudated by
numerous authorities.
1.-THE right of the State to regulate the traffic
in intoxicating liquors within its limits has been
exercised from the foundation of the govern
ment, and is not open to question. The State
. may prescribe the persons by whom, and the
conditions under which, the traffic may be car
7led on. 1t may impose upon those who act
ender its license. such liabilities and penalties
an its Judgment are proper to secure society
against the dangers of the traffic, and individ
uais against injuries committed by intoxicated
persons under the influence Of resulting
from their intoxication.
1.-THE lcensee. by accepting license and ac-
quiring thereby privilege from the State to
engage in the traffic, privilege confined to the
takes it subject to such condition the Legisa-
ture may attach to its exercise. He consents to
Sbe bound by the conditions when he accepts the
license and the State is the sole Judge of the rea
condolences of the conditions imposed. And the
power of the Legislature part of the excise
system to impose the liabilities imposed by the
act in question upon licensed dealers as a condi
ton of granting license, cannot we think. be
questioned. A party cannot object upon const-
tutional grounds to liability which he has vol
unfairly assumed in consideration of benefit
conferred. Our conclusion is that the
act of 1873 is a constitutional enactment tits
doubtless an exercise of extreme legislative
power, but we cannot say that it violates any ex-
press or implied prohibition of the Constitution"
The law TINS held. constitutional in all its
parts, and has remained on the statute books
/. from 1873 TO the present time 1t is feared by
come that our Supreme Court will hold local
option law uncons titutional. This fear grows
cut of the decision in the of Maize vs. The