Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1888-03-15
Section Nv. made it unlawful for any

injured by the traffic.
In the action of "Wightman VS.. De-
vere' 3Srd Wis. reports, page $40, the
court sustained the judgement obtained
by the wife for $50 damages resulting
from the intoxication of her husband.
The facts of the case were these: The
husband while intoxicated fell from a
wagon and was SO seriously injured as
to require medical attendance and con-
slant care and watching on the wife's
part. and that her health was injured
in consequence, beside necessitating the
hiring of a man to do the farm work
which the husband had formerly been
able to perform.
The wife claimed damages TO the
amount of 1920, but the jury awarded
her but $50. The jury evidently regarded
woman's time and suffering of very
little account. and the injury and loss of
time for drunkard nothing. as that
was but natural result of the trade.
On appeal, by the defendant, to the
supreme court, he insisted "that the
legislature had no authority to make
party selling liquors under a license,
liable for the misdoings of an intoxi-
Gated person or for any injury a wife
might sustain in consequence of the in
toxication of her husband, in her per-
son, property, or means of support"
The supreme court following previous
decisions held that .'the legislature
might impose such terms, conditions
and liabilities as it might deem proper,
upon the right to traffic in in intoxicat-
ing liquors;aud affirmed the Judgement. ,
In the case of estate VS.. Ludington''
S3rd Wis. page l07. the supreme court
held that''the legislature, in an exercise
OF the police power, may entirely pro-
hibit the selling or giving away of ar
dent or intoxicating liquors as bever-
age"
cite these decisions of the supreme
court to show that the questions con-
nected with the control and prohibition
of the liquor traffic in this state are not
new, but that our courts have held
squarely for years that the legislature
has the right to prohibit, if it chooses;
and had the legislature done its part as
well, the results would have been very |
different. As soon as it became evident
that even small damages might be OBJ
tanned against the liquor dealers under
this law, it was repealed and by the
same legislature our present license laws
were enacted. The repeating act con-
tanned no saving clause, and all actions |
that had been commenced and all rights
OF actions that had accrued under the
Graham Law went down with the
repeal. This question occurs to US: II
the legislature was honest in enacting
this law why was it so speedily re-
pealed, or why in the repeating act did
it fail to insert a saving clause?
This brings us to consider the laws
on our statute books at the present
time.
There are individuals in our midst
who, in their innocence, believe and
stoutly affirm that we have local op
tion law. The fact is. as every well-in-
formed person knows, we have nothing
that even approaches local option law
We may vote for men who we think
will not grant license, but that vote
will not bind them to respect our wishes
Ia other words, tbs laws are so framed
as to make an issue on men, rather
than measures. The failures, with
which we are all acquainted. OF the full
hllment after election of promises made
before. shows on what brittle thread
hangs all hope of local prohibition, I'M
der existing laws.
The sum aud substance of the pres
ent laws are that any one wishing to
engage in the business CT making
drunkards, must pay into the proper
treasury a certain sum, required by law
Tor that privilege. sum we call
icense-fee, but some prefer to call it a
tax, thinking that word less expressive
of the true meaning which always at
lteaches to the word license. In addition
to this license fee, he must give bond
that he will permit no gambling with
cards, dice, or any device for that pur-
pose, on his primises; and that he will
not sell or give away any intoxicating
drinks to any minor, or to persons in
t0xicated, or to persons bordering on
or to habitual drunkards.
With the bond filed and the fee paid,
he is granted license, which makes it
lawful to carry on his work of destruct-
ton.
We will not stop TO criticise this sec
ton, but simply ask. where, between
sobrlety and drunkenness il the "bord-
err of intoxication? To conscientious
man the"border" may be but one glass
removed from total abstinence while to
one greedy for gain it may be but one
glass from the gutter.
Dye legislatures, what went yo down
to Madison to do! Not to protect BY
law the youth, inebriates, and homes
of our land, or you would have added:
No minor or habitual drunkard shall
be allowed to enter or remain in a sa-
loon, and the presence of either of these
classes therein shall be conclusive evil
dence of the violation of this section
And If any minor or habitual DRINKS ard
be found in or go from saloon, intoxi-
Gated it shall be presumtive evidence
of violation of this section, and the
license of such keeper be revoked upon
conviction under any of these provi-
sions, with fine of 800, or six months
in the county Jail, or both at the dis
erection of the Court. No; the newt
able conclusion is that the legislature
framed its laws not to save men but to
to protect the ssloon-keeper and the
traffic.