Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1886-08-19
A New Test for Prohibition.

The proceeding recently brought in
one of the United States courts in Iowa
on behalf of saoon-keeper imprisoned
for violation of the state prohibitory
law comes under the fourteenth amend
ment To the Federal Constitution, which
says: Nor shall any state deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law In this
case the saloon-keeper' establishment
was closed and he was thrown into iaIl
without jury trial, and it is. therefore,
claimed that he has been deprived of
both liberty and property without due
process of law" The Prohbitionists
have long since abandoned the idea that
coercive teetotalism can be enforced by
the ordinary machinery of the courts,
having learned that in large towns and
cities jurors regard prohibitory law with
contempt and will not convict under
them no matter what the proof Pro-
| hbition as it is now understood involves
the denial of trial by jury, and this,
| indeed. is the cardinal feature of the
| latest prohibitory statutes. The saloon
keeper is first enjoined from selling
| liquor, and in case he violates the in
| junction is arraigned for contempt of
court and punished summarily by the
Judge without the intervention of either
grand or petit jury. 1t is therefore
very interesting and important question
| whether the United States courts will
| regard this method of procedure as
| '.due process OF law"
| According to one theory ''due process
of law requires the action of both
grand and petit juries, but the United
States Supreme Court has recognized
the right of the states to abolish the
grand-j jury system. In comparatively
recent case that tribunal went even
| further, and said: "a state cannot de-
prive person of his property without
due process of law; but this does not
necessarily imply that all trials in the
state courts affecting the property of
persons must be by jury. This re-
| auIrement is met If the trial is had &C
cording to the settled course of judicial
proceeding. Following the same reason
] ing the court said in another case of
much the same character that the states
could change or abolish any particular
form of trial, provided due regard was
shown for rights that are beyond the
control of any commonwealth. But, as
Justice Miller, observed, an American
state could not become "a despotism of
the many, of the majority. but never
theless a despotsm. While, therefore,
Iowa could do away with jury trials and
establish any other system operating
equally upon every member of the com
munity, it remains to be seen whether
one class of persons can be denied the
benefits extended 10 all others, and de-
prived of liberty and property in man
ner marked out by the majority, espec-
tally for particular description of Of
tenders.
But even if the United States courts
should sustain the abolition of trial by
Jury in liquor cases the rulings already
announced BY these tribunals in Iowa
and Kansas will make the enforcement
of prohibitory laws impossible. Simply
as a matter Of dollars and cents, it is
wholly impracticable to make payment
from the public treasury for all distiller-
les, breweries, ETC.. closed by prohib-
itory statute, but the Federal courts of
Iowa and Kansas say such compensa-
ton must be made. As long as the de-
cisions in regard TO compensation for
property destroyed remain unreversed
by the Supreme Court the burden is on
the Prohibitionists to show where they
will levy the enormous taxes needed to
pay the bill of damages and carry out
their pet notions. Chicago Tribune.