Orange County observer. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1880-1918, 1888-01-14
The Supreme Court Decision.

This decision is a landmark in the history
of Prohibition. It's value canuot be o'eree-
timated. The defeat of the liquor men IS
complete and overwhelming at every point
Leaders among them frankly admit to our re-
porters that all the Prohibition victories
heretofore gained, all combined, have not
been 50 depressing or disastrous to their IN
terests as this one. To the surprise OF every
one. the Court was substantially unanimous
in It's decision, seven to one-the one. justice
Field dissenting as to several points-and the
victory is all the more emphasized by the
fact that the Prohibition side Of the case was
unaccnuntablv neglected by the Attorney
General of Kansas, While the liquor side vas
cared for by several of the able>t lawyers III
America.
The decision is nowhere evasivc. Ittoucles
every essential point with a dlrectnes> and
completeness that leave not a single loop 10
hang a doubt or. The gravity of the sltua-
ton was not generally appreciated. Let 1t
be borne in mind that the cases considered had
been appealed from the decision OF the United
States Circuit Court in Kansas. where Judge
Brewer held that the Kansas Prohibitory
trauor law was unconstitutional, tasing his
opinion on the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States. lie
held tina the law was unconstitutional pa
cause it deprived the brewers of their prop
erty without compensation. Some of the
points raised were novel and doubtful, and
gave the Prohibitionists throughout the coun-
try no little uneasiness. But the cloud has
now broken and the sun shines out bright and
glorious. How like clods on the coffin I'D of
the doomed traffic sound these sentences
from the Judges lips:
he right to sell liqour is not one of the
rights growing out of citizenship OF the
United states
u he right to manufacture drink for ones
own use is subject to the RESTRICTION that 1t
shall not %endanger or affect the rights Of
Others. If such manufacture qoes preludi-
cially affect the rights and interests Of the
community, it follows that socAty has the
| power 70 protect itself by legislation against
the in INJURIOUS consequences Of that business. :
There Is here no Justification for holding
that the State, under the gulse merely OF
police regulations, is aiming TO deprive the
cltlgen of his constitutional rights; for we
| cannot shut out of view the fact, within the
knowledge of all, that the public health, the
public morals and the public safety may be
endangered by the general use of intoxicat-
ing drinks. nor can we ignore the fact, es-
tablished 10y statistics, accessible to every
one, that the disorder, pauperism and crime
prevalent in the country are, in large meas
ure, directly traceable to thise evil
"Such a right 1.-THE right to manufacture
Intoxicating drinks does not inhere i'll Cltl-
zenship. Nor can it be said that Government
interfcreS with or lmpalrS any one s constr
tutional rights of liberty or Of property when
it determines that the manufacture and sale
Of intoxicating drinks Cor general or indvld-
ual use as a beverage. are or may become
hurtful to society and to every member of
it, and is, therefore. a business in which no
Que may lawfully engage"
That there might be no evading of the
point, the Court clinched it thus:
9All property in this country is held under
the implied obligation that the owners use of
it shall not be injurious to the equal enjoy
ment of others having al equal right to the
enjoyment OF their property, nor injurious to
the rights of the community"
Nor it is necessary. the Court held, in order
to enjnin a place where liquor is made OF
sold. to have recourse to a trial by Jury. We
F., can proceed against it as against any other
nuisance.
This decision is a victory from beginning
to end. 1t clears the air. Strange of a Judi
cal decision of the highest court III America,
but it has in it the ring and cheer OF a battle
shout.
Praise God, from whom all blessings flow
The Voice.