The Black Hills union. [volume] (Rapid City, Pennington County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1889-1904, 1890-06-27
WHERE ARE eve NowsD
BY COL. ;y1 F. RITTER.

80 ~ 1eAAeVe we 0Od ON.
barrassment Of tho situation. In nv opin.
tom. ted upon that subject, Il will be- seer
that the difficulties multibit and The en-:
bnrrassment INCREASES:
u tho tUwA L6gi6latufe were To enact a
taM prohibiting the importation, manu-
1actare, Or SALE If sugar, and rice, and.
khoSisiaha we've Is bass Z similar act as
to hsas ND neal, every lawyer in the
land and intelligent man would soy that
such laws would be absolutely void, be.
cause sugar and rice and -four and me u
are necessities. The people need and
must have them, and the Constitution of
the United States contemp1ates that the
heces saries, Comforts; ind luxtries Of
lite Shall not be stopped at the borders
OK . State and kept from the people by
any kind of Legislation.
No specific Congressional, legislation
IS required upen thts subject. The Su-
prene Court of the United States has
specifically said that the right of a State
ufacture and sale Of intoxicating liquors
within her boundaries is no longer an
open question In that court, That power
was declared. b. that court il is47, and
has beeh often repeated since. If o State
Legislature cannot prohibit the manu-
facture AMI sale of sugar and rice, -four
and meal, upon what principle can it and
does it prohibit the manufacture and sale
Of in'oxicating Liquors? The distinction
is apparent, and needs no argument nor
specific definition. What is for this good
Of the people and necessary to their ex-
istence and comfort cannot, be barred
out Of a State, or the opportunities for
its enjoyment. interfered with.
1t is TIC settled law by the Supreme
Court of the United Ctates that an act Of
the State Legislature absolutely prohibit
ing. the hufacture and sale Of intoxi-
ing liquors ase luxurious to the people
Ind to the public welfare Of a State. and
fall within police regulations, Sugar aud
rice. flour and meal are articles of legiti-
mate commerce because they are. hecess
sary to the, people and to the public well
fare. and their traffic cannot be restricted
by a Legislature or by Congress. Neither
can Congress by an act delegate the
power or authority to a State Legislature
to prohibit or restrict the manufacture
and sale of these articles Of commerce,
because they are articles Of commerce
and because they are necessary.
If intoxicating liquors are articles of
commerce, then Congress cannot by an
act delegate the power or authofity to d
State tt prOhibit the importation or the
manufacture and sale Of the same by leg
islation.
If Intoxicating liquors are iHjuribus I'd
the public health, peace and prosperity,
then they have no rights at all, fol
neither the act of Congress nor the Leg
i~slature can bargain away the public
morals, the public health and the public
peace. Listen to the language of Justice
Grier of the Supreme Court OF the United
States, in tho case of Thurlow We. Com
monwealth Of Massachusetts,:
1T is not necessary for the sake Of jus.
Hfying tile State legislation now under
consideration to array the appalling sta
tistics of misery, pauperism, and crime
which have their origin in the use OF
abuse of ardent spirits. The police
power, which is exclusive in States. is
alone competent to the correction of
tae,e great evils, and all measures of re-
stTa!nt OF prohibition necessary to effect
the purpose are within the scope Of that
authority: There is no conflict of power
or Of legislation between the States and
the United States. Each is acting with
in its sphere and for the public good;
and if a loss Of revenue should accrue to
the United States from a diminished con-
sumption Of ardent spirits, she will
be the gather d thousand-fold in the
health. wealth, and happiness of the
people,
This is what the court judicial1y knew
in lS47. Let me ask the Legislators in
our National Cong ess whether they
propose to recognize as legitimate art.
cles Of commerce what produce the
state Of affairs described by Justice
Grier7
This is the dilemma: If Intoxicating
liquors are in fact articles of commerce
because they are necess 'ries, then no
State can control their traffic, nor can
Congress itself break their commercial
character at the boundary lines of q
State. If the Supreme Court of the
United States is correct when it has said
in substance that no legislation can bar
gain away the public health, the public
morals and the public peace, then Con-
gress itself cannot enact q law and make
It valid, that would recognize or protect
the manufacture and sale of Intoxicating
liquors anywhere, either as q legitimate
business or as articles of commerce.
If intoxicating liquors are contem-
plated by the Constitution of the United
States as articles of commerce, there is
no power in Congress or State Legisla-
ture to prevent them from going every
Wnere ike & ana rice, nOur and
meal.
If intoxicating liquors, because of their
devilish character, are not contemplated
by the Constitution as articles of COM
MERGE, then neither Congress nor State
Legislature can confer charter to be pro-
tected or right to go or stay anywhere.
Either intoxicating liquors are articles
of commerce or they are not. If they
are, then they are entitled to protection
and privileges as such in any State. II
they are not. then they can have no rights
anywhere. There can be only one con
clusion or final settlement to this vexed
question upon which harmony can b.
reached-that is, for Congress and State
Legislature to declare that intoxicating
liquors are q public enemy in this Chris.
tian nation.
INDIANAPOLIS, Ind.