The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-05-23
with the material chosen It is the part Of
wisdom to hold in reserve unqualified praise
of so uncertain an issue.
THE SALOONS AND THE LAW.


Judge Elliotts opinion in the case of Hedder-
ich VS.. the State. concurred in by the entire
Supreme Court. 1t will be read with interest,
not only by the profession but by every citi
zen who lays claim to general knowledge OF
current events. Its history is significant
For many months the police of our city had
usurped the presogatives Of the Legislature,
and had notified the saloor-keepers that they
should not be molested for any violation of
the IL o'clock law, provided they quit business
with reasonable promptness at IL. But a
new police board determined to execute the
law as it stands on the statute books, and
Hedderich was fined for selling between the
hour established by law and the hour dicta ted
by the police. The fine was insignif-
cant, but the principle was everything,
for it became a question whether the
Legislature of Indiana should make laws or the
saloon-keepers, at their pleasure; hence an APP
peal was taken Although no one was in Jail
or likely to be hanged, the case was advanced
on the docket, and in about ninety days it
was decided.
The grounds Of the appeal are indicated in
tho opinion. It was simply a renewed attack
upon all legislation regulating the liquor
traffic. 1t is especially significant as indi-
eating the growing arrogance of the traffic.
Ten years ago they dictated every word of the
law which was to repeal the local option law
of 1873, and thought they were gaining every
thing necessary when they put forward the
closing hour from the 'inconveniently early
hour of 9, as Ex-Governor Hendricks called
it, to the hour Of IL, and tied the hands of
cities and towns by making 800 the limit Of
corporation license, instead of leaving it op-
tional It was this increasing arrogance
which extorted from the police authorities that
additional hour, and because they could not
retain it they rushed into the Supreme Court
to overthrow their own law, hoping to be
without law 1t is pardonable to say that
Judge Elliott reads the law to them with a
plainness of speech which they must despise,
and which must be highly gratifying to every
citizen who wishes to put some restraints on
the liquor traffic The tendency everywhere
is to tighten, not to loosen these bonds, and
the liquor sellers have to thank themselves
more than all other agencies for the growing
discomfort of the people, for they have bid
defiance to all law. The case which has
called forth the learned opinion of Judge
Elliott is in point. One thing must strike
every candid reader of this able paper, be his
personal views what they may: The Consti-
tuition of Indiana furnishes ample authority
to throw almost llimitable restraints around
the liquor traffic. In short, it can be s1regu-
lated to its minimum under this ruling of
the court. But it will probably not be dis
turbed in its present possessions for
years to come, because, though very large
majority of the people of the State desire more
stringent laws, there is no concert among
them. Some will have nothing but prohibi-
ton, pure and simple, and, because that is not
attainable under the present Constitution,
they will propose nothing and accept nothing
but prohibition in the Constitution" where
it would be dead for hundred years without
legislation. The Journal has said many times
that the people cannot abide the dictation and
arrogance of the saloon interests of this State,
and it has been equally frank in saying that
it does not believe that our most immediate
remedy is in prohibition To us it seems that
high license is practicable. Let there be a
truce as to steps, but let all who believe in re-
straining the traffic and minimizing the evils
which confessedly flow from it, unite in a
purpose to do the best thing possible. On
this platform all true men can unite.