The Hawaiian gazette., 1889-04-02

Z - 4
advance of judicial sentiment in the
questions raised in its adjudication
but find in the well known case Of
Fisher as. AIcGIr, decided in the SUI
preme Court of Massachusetts,, thirty
five years ago, and reported i'll l Grey
Isl, the following statement of law
by that Court: We have no doubt
that it is competent for the Legisla-
ture to declare the possession of GER
tain articles of property, either abso-
lutely, or when held in particular
places, and under particular circum-
stances, to be unlawful, because they
would be injurious, dangerous or noX-
ious." To include liquors in this cat
egOry is not forced application of
the principle, for the Legislature may
reasonably decide that the possession
of liquors in certain localities and in
unlimited quantities would be injuri
Gus or dangerous to public order or
public morals; and if they so decide,
it is not for the courts to dispute their
conclusions" Rights of property,
like all other social and conventional
| rights, are subject to such reasonable
limitations in their enjoyment as
shall prevent them from being injuri-
Gus, and to such reasonable restraints
and regulations established by law, as
the Legislature, under the governing
and controlling power vested in them
by the Constitution, may think nee
essary and eXpedient." SHAW, Oh.
J. in Commonwealth Us. ALger, Cush.
So.
By this general police power of
the state, persons and property are
subjected to all kinds of restraints
and burdens, in order to secure the
general comfort, health and prosper
ity of the state; of the perfect right of
the Legislature to do which, no uues-
ton ever was, or, upon acknowledged
principles, ever can be made, so far as
natural persons are concerned.n Red
field Oh. j. in Thorpe as. Rutland and
Burlington -R. R. Co., 81 VT, 14Oj.
" a regulation, whatever NAV be
its character, which is instituted for
the purpose of preventing injury to
the public, and which does tend to
furnish the desired protection, is
clearly constitutional" (Tiedman's
Limitations of the Police Power, 2O7).
And quoting from Judd, J. in the
case of the King as. Tong Lee, Haw.
34l-2, otherwise Known as the Chinese
Wash-houses Case: Essays Cooley
on Constitutional Limitations, 577,
the limit to the exercise of the police |
power in these cases must be this |
the regulations must have reference
to the comfort, safety or welfare of |
society," The Act in question does |
purport to have reference to the COM |
fort, safety and welfare of society,
Its object, however injudiciously eX-
pressed, is plainly to repress what, in
the opinion of the Legislature tends
to the dissemination and propagation
of disease. We are unable to see that
the Act i'll question violates this pro-
vision of the Constitution, as no
property of the citizens is appropri-
ated by the state, or destroyed with
out due process of law. The
judiciary is not vested with the au-
thOrity to decide whether laws en-
acted by the Legislature are petite,
wise or reasonable" 1t may with
equal correctness be said of the legis-
lative regulation which this Court is
asked to set aside, that it "does pur-
port to have reference to the comfort,
safety and welfare of society, and that
It's object, however injudiciously ex-
pressed is plainly to repress what, in
the opinion of the Legislature" Gre
ates both an opportunity and tempt
alton to unIaWfully traffic in spiritu-
Gus liquors, and therefore tends TO
such traffic. 1t needs no argument
to demonstrate that the unlimited ac-
emulation of liquors in stores and
offices frequented by the public, and
where the public may lawfully go,
would, in itself, tend to traffic in
such liquors, and so be menace to the
public welfare. There is little force
II the argument that the accumula-
ion of liquor in certain places may
lot be prevented by law, as the accu-
mutation of gunpOwder or burning
iuids is prevented, because it is not
IN explosive or q dangerous combus-
IDLE. Such accumulation NAV be
prevented If 1t menaces society in any
way; the Legislature thinks it tends
o illicit traffic in liquor if this Court
.oubts the correctness of the legisla-
i've conclusion, it may not for that
eason interfere, if we accept the fore
DING authorities. | think that l
ave covered, in these conclusions,
substantially all of the points raised
y the defendants counsel i'll his ar
ument.
The notice of appeal specifics Arti-
les vi, IN, XII. and XIV. of the
as being in conflict with
ne law under consideration these
re not in conflict with Section first
the "Act to better prevent illicit
'affic in spirituous liquors." and the
counsel does not claim, in
is argument, that there is such con-
let; he does indeed argue against the
ght of seizure of liquors held against
he provisions of Section first of the
i'd Act, but that Section does not
'Ovide for the seizure of such liquors,
nd Section 9Th, which does provide
+ such seizure, has been declared
Did by the decision in TVinq Wo
han d Company as. HaWaiion
moreover there is moth
g in the record to show that the
luors in question had been seized
all.
1t therefore seems to me that the
dgment appealed from should be
firmed as to the fine and costs, but
at that portion of it which DEGREES