The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1888-01-04
The supreme Court Decision.

zhis decision Is landmark in the history
Of Prohibition. It's value canuot be overes.
timated. The defeat Of the liquor men Il
complete and overwhelming at every point
porters that all the Prohibition victories
heretofore gained, all combined, have NOT
been so depressing or disastrous to their In.
terests as this one. To the surprise Of every
one, the Court was substantially unanimous
In its decision, seven to one-the one, Justics
Field, dissenting as to several points-and the
victory Is all the more emphasized by tho
fact that the Prohibition side of the case was
unaccountably neglected by the Attorney
cared for by several OF the ablest lawyers In
America. e
The decision is nowhere evasive. I. touches
every essential point with q directness and
completeness that leave not single loop to
hang doubt on. The gravity Of the stua.
ton was not generally appreciated: Let It
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
liquor law was unconstitutional, basing his
opinion on the Fourteenth Amendment TO
the Constitution Of the United States. Hs
held that the law was unconstitutional be-
cause it deprived the brewers OF their prop
erty without compensation Some Of the
gave the Prohi hibitionists 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 lid OF
the doomed traffic sound these sentences
from the Judges lips:
1.-THE right to sell iqour Is not one Of the
rights growing out OF citizenship Of tho
1.-THE right to manufacture drink for ones
ov,,, ,,eo 10 cuh;aof fof fho restriction that, IL
shall not endanger or affect the rights OF
Others. If such manufacture does prejudi-
cially affect the rights and interests OF tho
community, 1t follows that society has tho
power to protect itself by legislation against
the injurious consequences Of that business.
"There Is here no justification for holding
that the State, under the guise merely Of
police regulations, is aiming to deprive the
citizen 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 b
endangered by the general use OF intoxicat-
ing drinks; nor can we ignore the factr es-
tablished by statistics, accessible to every
one, that the disorder, pauperism and crime
prevalent in the country are, in large meas
ure, directly traceable to this evil"
"Such right 1.-THE right to MANUFACTURES
Intoxicating drinks] does not inhere in cih-
zenship. Nor can It be said that Government
interferes with or impairs any ones constf-
tutional rights Of liberty or OF property when
it determines that the manufacture and sale
Of intoxicating drinks for general or indvid-
ual use as beverage are OF may become
hurtful to society and to every. member OF
it, and is, therefore, q business In which no
Que may lawfully engage"
That there might be no evading OF ths
point, the Court clinched it thus:
Gail 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 an 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 enjoin a place where liquor Is made or
sold, to have recourse to trial BY jury. we
can proceed against it Is against any other
nuisance.
This decision Is victory from beginning
to end. It clears the air. Strange Of judi
cial decision Of the highest court in America,
but it has in it the ring and cheer OF battle
shout.
Praise God, from whom all blessings dowl>
The Voice.