The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-04-02

tend the application of the statute tc
the whole community, except drug
gists, physicians and licensed dealers
in spirituous liqurs," they being the
only persons excepted by the statute.
The evident object of the Legislature
in the enactment of this provision,
was to prevent such places of general
resort as stores and other premises used
for carrying on such public pursuits
as require a Government license, from
being used for the illicit traffic in
spirituous liquors, by forbidding the
storage of liquors in such places either
by the proprietors, or their customers
or clients, or by any one, except only
in very limited quantity, !" for the
use of those engaged on the prem
ises." Inasmuch as it is compare
lively easy for person carrying on a
business which attracts a large num-
Der of customers, to evade the law
against the unlicensed traffic in liq-
uors, under the fiction of storing
liquor belonging to his customers, as
well as in other convenient ways, the
Legislature may well have consid-
cred that the success of the law re-
quires that its provisions should in
clude the whole community. There
foIe the only inequality of the law is
the exclusion of druggists, physicians
and licensed liquor dealers from its
provisions, but as they are authorized
to sell spirituOus liquors in connection
with their respective pursuits by the
general "Act to regulate the sale of
spirituous liquors." and for perfectly
obvious reasons, we need not consider
this point further. Even considering
the law in its application to bear
mainly upon persons conducting some
licensed business or occupation, it is
not for that reason unconstitutional.
Laws public in their objects may,
unless express constitutional prOyis-
ion forbids, be either general or local
in their application; they may en-
brace many subjects or one, and they
may extend to all citizens, or be con-
fined to particular classes, as minors,
or married women, bankers or traders
and the Iike.n (IOW0 r. R. Land Co.
as. ,SOper, 80 Iowa 112, and Cooley's
Const. Lin. 1872,
The point is also made by defend
ants counsel, that the provision of
law in question is unconstitutional
because liquor is property, and to
make its mere possession criminal,
would divest it of its property charac-
ter. This would be true if the law
forbade all possession of liquor, mas
much as its purchase is legally pro-
vided for. But under the police !
power of the state, may not the pos !
session of liquor be fenced about with |
precautions in order to diminish the |
evils arising from an illicit traffic? |
The power of the Legislature to limit !
the right of property in liquor as well |
as in other things, the possession of |
which is liable to abuse or to be pro- |
ductive of injury to society, is gener-
ally recognized. The provisions of n |
former liquor law in this country,
making it penal offence to give |
liquor to a native Hawaiian, was
of the right of property in
liquor; the law compelling the cree
ton of none but fire-prOOf buildings
within certain limits, is limitation
of the right of property in land the
law forbidding the storage of more
than ten cases of kerosene in one |
place, is also a limitation of the right |
Of property. at belongs to that de-
partment Qegislative) to exert what
are known as the police powers of the
state, and to determine, primarily,
what measures are appropriate or
lie morals, the public health or the
public safety" (LugJer Us. Kansas,
l23 U. S., 66D. The ground of such
is the public interest,
and the Legislature is the judge
Of this. Because the Legislature
has legalized the sale of spirituous
liquors, it is. not thereby, restricted
rom limiting, controlling and re-
gulating the use of such liquors in
he hands of purchasers as it shall
leem advisable for public order or
public morals. The power of the
state to prohibit the sale of spirit
lous liquors, is unquestioned: this
includes the lesser power of regulat-
ng the use and possession of liquor
When the sale is legalized. We see I
IN instance of this power of regulat-
ng the use of articles that may be
egally possessed, in the restriction of :
he use of giant powder, which may
,e legally bought and sold and held 5
n possession, and yet the use of it for l
aking fish is made penal offence by G
aw. Judge Grier of the Supreme
)ourt of the United States, said in his 9
oncurring decision of the License !
,ases reported in IS Curtis, 577: I
The police power, which is eXclu- a
lively in the States, is alone compe- o
emit to the correction of these great 0
wills, (resulting from intemperance) d
nd ALI measures of restraint or pro- n
ibition necessary to effect the pur- Il
ose, are within the scope of that au- n
lority.n The case of nugJer Us. u
,dnsaS, above referred to, decided 81
lat law which forbade anyone to p
liquor for his own use a
as constitutional. The Court use &c
he following language upon this v
Oint: "If, in the judgment of the Z
the manufacture of in u
,Xicating liquors for the makers IL
WI use, as a beverage, would tend to IL
'ipple, if it did not defeat the effort to al
lard the community against the
7ils attending the excessive use of Ju
Ich liquors, it is not for the courts, al
pom their views as to what is best II
nd safest for the community, to dis I'll
gard the legislative determination M
that question: With equal truth b'
may be said that, if in the judg- -
ent of the Legislature, the accumu-
tiOn of sDirituous LIQUORS i'm certain