Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1890-11-11
LIBERTY AND LAW.
Their Relations Set Forth by
Justice Field.
A DECISION IN A LIQUOR CASE.

The Right to Sell TangIefoot by the
Drink Not One of the InaIIenabie Ones,
Nor Inherent In Citizenship The
States Authority Complete In the
Matter of Restrictions-The Power of
Law to Regulate IDdIviduaI Freedom
A False Assumption.
WARRINGTON CITY. Nov. lin the su-
preme court of the United States yester.
day Justice Field delivered the decision of
the court in the case of p Crowley, chief
OF police of San Francisco, VS.. Henry
Christensen. appellee. The court decided
that the board of police commissioners of
San Francisco has arbitrary power to
grant or refuse liquor licenses. and re-
versed the order of the circuit court for
the northern district OF California dis
charging the prisoner (Christensen), who
was charged with selling liquor without
license, and remanded the cause with di-
rections to take further proceedings in
conformity with the opinion. Justice
Field discussed at length the relations be-
tween the liquor business and the laws Of
tbs country
He says; 1T is undoub tedly true that
IL Is the right of every citizen to pursue
any lawful business subject only t. such
restrictions as are imposed on all persons
OF the same age, sex or condition. But
the possession and enjoyment of this
right. and, indeed, of all rights, are SUBJ
Ject to such restrictions as may be
deemed by the governing authority of the
country essential to the safety, health,
peace, good order and morals of the COM
munity. Even liberty itself is not unre-
stricted license to act according to ones
own will IL is only freedom from re-
straint under conditions essential to the
equal enjoyment of the same rights by
Others. IL is then liberty regulated by
law. The regulations governing all the
various pursuits of life are almost inf
mite, varying with the nature OF the bust.
ness-some regulations being designed to
lesseu noise, others 10 protect health.
others TO remove odors and so on.
The Personal Liberty Argument.
at would hardly be necessary to men.
ton this were il not for the position often
taken and vehemently pressed that there
Is something wrong in principle and
Objectionable in similar restrictions when
applied 10 the business of selling by re-
tail Intoxicating liquors 1t Is urged that
as the liquors are used as a beverage and
the injury following them if taken in ex-
cess is voluntarily inflicted and is CON
fined TO the party offending, their sale
should be without restrictions, the con.
tention being that what man should
drink equally with what lie shall eat. is
not properly matter~for legislation
Why 1t l. Held To BE Faulty.
There is in this position an assump-
ton of a fact which does not exist that
W hen the liquors are taken in excess, the
injuries are confined to the party offend
ing. The injury, it is true, first falls
upon him in his health which the habit
undermines; in his morals, which it
weakens; and in self-ahasement which it
creates. But as it leads TO neglect of bus
mess and waste of property aud general
decentralization. it affects those who are
Immediately connected with and depend
ent upon him. BY the general concur
renee of opinion OF every civilized and
Christian community, there are few
sources of crime and misery to society,
equal TO the dramshop where Intoxicating
liquors, IN small quantities to be drunk at
the time, are sold iudiscriminately TO all
parties applying.
No Inherent Right to Sell DRAINS.
The statutes of every state show a
greater amount OF crime attributable to
this than TO any other source The sale
of such liquors in this way has heretofore,
a. all times. been considered the proper
subject of Legislative regulation. For that
matter, their sale by the glass may be alb
solutely prohibited. 1t is question of
public expediency and not of federal law
There is no Inherent right of a citizen TO
sell Intoxicating liquors by retail; it is
not privilege of citizen of the state or
of citizen of the United States
Authority of the State.
an the prohibition or regulation OF the
traffic, discretion may be vested in officers
to decide to whom TO grant and to whom
TO refuse liquor licenses. The officers
may not always exercise the power con-
ferred upon them with.wisdom or Justice
TO the parties affected. But that is mat
ter which does not affect the authority of
the state, or one which can be brought
under the cOgnizance of the cop-ts OF the
United States"