The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1888-01-17

to be misled by mere pretenso
They are at liberty-indeed =,
under a solemn duty-to look at u
substance Of things whenever tbs
enter upon the inquiry whether n
Legislature has transcribed Il
limits of its authority. If. tha,.
fore, a statute purporting to hav
been enacted to
PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH
the public morals, or the pub,,
safety, has no real or substaps;-
relation to those objects, or i
palpable invasion of rights secu,.s
by the fundamental law, it is n.
duty of the courts to so adiudse oas
thereby give effect to the const;,a
ton. -I..
Keeping in view these principIss
as governing the relations with ss.s|
other of the judicial and Iepislss;s1
departments of government !,
difficult to perceive any ground T.
the Judiciary to declare that the NJ.
hibition by Kansas Of the mamie
ture or sale within her Limits
intoxicating liquors, for general ne
there as a beverage, is not s;-t
adapted to the end of protecting ~
community against the evils whies
confessedly result from the exrt,H
sive use of ardent spirits.
There is here no Justification 4
holding that the State under n
guise merely Of police regulation
is aiming to deprive the citizen
his constitutional rights; for we c,
not shut out of view the fact, with
the knowledge Of all, that the pu.
lie health, the public morals, an
the public safety may be endangers
by the general use of intoxieati,
drinks. Nor can We ignore the "a.
established by statistics accessible
every one, that the disorder, paupI
ism, and crime prevalent in
country are in large measure dire
traceable to this evil. If, theref
a State deems the absolute prof.
ton of the manufacture and
within her limits of intoxiea
liquors for other than med
scientific, and manufacturing
poses, to be necessary to the NJ
and security of society, the Cd
can not, without usurping legishs
functions, override the will Of
people as thus expressed by Il
chosen representatives
1T Is A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCE
in our institutions, indispensable
the preservation of public libed
that one of the separate departma
of government shall not usurp pOV
committed by the constitution
another department. And so,
the judgment of the Legislature
manufacture of intoxicating liq
for the makers own use "a a be
age, would tend to cripple, if n
defeat, her efforts to guard the
munity against the evils atten
the excessive use of such liquOl
is not for the courts, upon
views as to what is best and
for the community, to disregart
legislative determination of
question. So far from such re
ton being inappropriate to the
eral end sought TO be accOmpliS
it is easy to be seen that the e
scheme of prohibition, as embo
in the constitution and law
Kansas, might fail II the rig
each citizen to manufacture in
eating liquors for his own use
beverage were recognized. 81
right does not inhere in eitizeni
Nor can it be said that governs F
interferes with or impairs any Y,
constitutional rights Of liberty
property when it determines
the manufacture and sale OF mi
eating drinks for general or iHdI
ual use as a beverage are
become hurtful to society an
every member of it, and Is the'
business in which no one can
fully engage. This conelus
| unavoidable, unless the f01n
amendment of the Constituuon
from the States Of the UniO1 8
powers of police that were re 81
at the time the original Const
was adopted. But this eol
declared, upon full considerai
Barber VS.. Connolly, lib u
that the fourteenth amendme1
b. r HAD NO SUCH EFFECT.
With reference to the ass
that the prohibition of the ma
ture and sale of liquor De
liquor dealers of their properly
out due process of law, the Goa
that all property under our W
government is subject to the
ton that it shall not be used
injurieusly affect the rights
community and hereby be-
nuisance. The State OF kani
a right to prohibit the liqu0i
1t did not thereby take
property of the brewers. II
abated nuisance. The pr