Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1890-04-04

upon society, it has an undoubted
right to restrain the citizen from the
commission C of that act; and fair and
equitable consideration OF the rights
OF other citizens make it not only its
right but its duty to restrain him. If
man willfully cuts off his hand or
mains himself in such way that he
is liable to become a public charge no
one will doubt the right of the State
to punish him; and if he smokes
opium thereby destroying his intellect
and shattering his nerves, it is diff
cult to see why limitation OF power
should be imposed upon the State in
such case. But it is urged by the
defense that IL moderate use of opium,
or that the moderate use OF an opium
pipe, is not deleterious and consequent
ly cannot be prohibited. We answer
that this is a question of fact which
can only be enquired into by the leg
islature. Smoking opium is recog-
nized evil in this country. 1t is a
matter OF general information that it
Is an insldious vice, n loathsome, dis
gusting and degrading habit, that is
becoming dangerously common with
the youth of the country and that its
usual concOmitents are imbecility,
pauperism and crime. 1t has been re-
garded as a proper subject o. legisla-
tion in every Western State, and it is
admitted by counsel in defense in the
argument Of this case that the statute
in relation to the suppression of joints
kept for the purpose of smoking opium
was constitutional and right.
Granted that this is proper sub
ject for legislative enactment and con-
troll, no limit can be placed on the
legislative discretion. 1t is for the
legislature to place on foot the in
quiry as to just in what degree the
use is injurious, to collect all the in
formation and to make all the needful
and necessary calculations. These
are questions OF fact with which the
court cannot deal. The constitution
ality of laws is not thus to be deter.
mined. Some criticism has been
made on the fact that the statute did
not declare in its title the purpose for
which it was enacted. This is not
necessary, for the validity of a penal
statute and does not affect the con-
stitutionality of its provisions. Peo-
pie VS.. West, LOG Miss. 297.
1t is common to indulge in a great
deal of loose talk about natural rights
and liberties, as if these were terms of
well defined and Interchangeable mean
ing. There is no such thing as an alb
solute or unqualified right or liberty
guaranteed to any member of society.
Natural rights and liberties of sub.
ject are relative expressions and have
relative or changeable meanings.
What would be a right OF liberty in
one state OF society would be an undue
license in another. The natural rights
OF the subject or his rightful exercise
of liberty in the pursuit OF happiness,
depends largely upon the amount OF
protection which he receives from the
Government. Governments in their
earlier existence afforded but little pro-
lection to their subjects, consequently
the subject had right to pursue his
happiness without much regard for the
rights Of the Government. The recip-
rocal relations were not large, he
yielded of but little and received but
little; if he was strong enough to buff
fet successfully with the world, all well
and good; if not he must live on the
charity OF individuals, or die neglected
on the highway. But now all civi-
lived Governments make provisions
for their unfOrtunates, and progress
i'll this direction has been wonderful
even since noted sages like Blackstone
lectured upon the inalienable rights
OF man. Not only is the protection OF
individual property becoming more
secure but the vicious are restrained
and controlled and the INDECENT and
unfortunate are maintained ut the
expense of the Government; and the
natural liberties and rights OF the sub
jects must yield up something to each
one of these burdens, which advancing
civilization is imposing upon the State.
1t is not an encroachment upon the
time-honOred rights of the individual
but it is simply an adjustment of the
relative rights and responsibilities, in
cident to the changing condition OF
society.
Our conclusion is that the law in
question involves no inalienable right.
1t may be radical, injudicious, and
wrong; but as we have before indicated
these are questions solely for legisla-
tive investigation and discretion, and
as has bsen said by Judge Story,
;, Judges should regard it as..their duty
to interpret laws aud not to wander
of into speculations upon their policy"
The judgment of the lower Court is
affirmed. X. DUNBAR, Judge.