The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1888-01-17
STRONG Drink DEFEATED.
The Kansas PrOhibit0ry Law Declared
Valid by the United States
81 .f1uf Supreme Court.

court to-day in the TWO so-called
prohibition cases of Peter Mugler,
plaintiff in error, VS.. the State of
Kansas, and in the case of the State
of Kansas vs.. Herman Ziebold and
Others, affirming the Judgment of
the lower court IN the two "Mugler"
cases and reversing the judgment in
the Ziebold case. The effect of this
opinion is to declare valid the pro-
hibition laws of the State of Kansas,
and is of course decided victory
for the prohibitionists.
The decision is very important,
and likely to be far-reaching in its
consequences. The judgment of the
court was pronounced in long and
elaborate opinion by Mr.. Justice
Harlan, who said:
: The general question in each case
is whether the prohibition statutes
of Kansas are in conflict with that
clause of the Fourteenth Amend
ment which provides that ''no State
shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or i'm
munities of citizens of the United
States, nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty or property
without due process of law. That
legislation by a State prohibiting the
manufacture within her limits of
Intoxicating liquors, to be there sold
or battered for general use as bev-
erage, does not necessarily infringe
any right, privilege, or immunity
secured by the Constitution of the
United States, is made clear by the
decisions of this court rendered be-
fore and since the adoption of the
fourteenth amendment. 1t is, how
ever, commended that although the
State
MAY PROHIBIT THE MANUFACTURE
of Intoxicating liquors for sale or
barter within her limits, for general
use as beverage, no convention or
legislature has the right, under our
form of government, to prohibit any
citizen from manufacturing, fer his
own use or for export or storage,
any article of food or drink not
endangering or affecting the rights
of others.
The argument made in support of
the first branch of this proposition
briefly stated is: That in the i'm
piled cOmpacts between the State
and the citizen certain rights are
reserved by the latter which are
guaranteed by the constitutional pro-
vision for the protection of life, lib
erty, and property against depriva-
ton without due process of law, and
with which the State cannot inter-
fere; that among those rights is that
of manufacturing for ones own use,
either food or drink; that, while ac-
cording to the doctrines of the COM
mune, the state may control the
tastes, appetites, habits, dress, food,
and drink of the citizen, our system
of government, based upon the in
dividuality and intelligence of the
people, does not claim to control him
except as to his conduct to others,
leaving him the sole judge as to all
that only affects himself.
1t will be observed that the pro-
position and the argument made in
support of it equally concede that
the right to manufacture drink for
ones personal use is subject to the
condition that such manufacture
does not endanger or affect the, rights
of others. If such manufacture does
prejudieially affect the rights and
interests of the community, it fol-
lows from the very premises stated
| by counsel that society has the power
to protect itself by legislation against
the injurious consequences of that
business. As was said in Mum VS..
lllingers ga U. s., l24), while power
does not exist with the whole people
to control rights that are I'd
PURELY AND CoNCLUsIvELY PRI-
''"il 'I.'' yATE, ftH
the government may require each
citizen so to conduct himself and so
/ " uoS Ai' O"h PiOPOAey 40 hOb hOSOo-
| sarily to injure others.
But by whom or by what authority
is it to be determined whether the
manufacture of particular articles of
drink, either for general use or for
the personal use of the maker, will
injuriously affect the public? Power
to determine such questions, so as to
bind all, must exist somewhere, else
society will be at the mercy of the
few, who, regarding only their own
appetites or passions, may be willing
to imperil the peace and security of
the many, provided only they are
permitted to do as they please.
| Under our system that power is
lodged with the legislative branch
of the government. 1t belongs to
that department to exert what are
known as the police powers of the
| States. 1t must be determined
primarily what measures are appro-
pirate or needful for the protection
I e L