Blue-grass blade., 1891-10-31
ANTI-NUISANCE WORK.

ANTl-NU lSANCE WORK.
IMPORTANT AND INTERESTING INvES-
LEGATIONS BY THE NATIONAL LEAGUE.
Il IL "a Nui,ance! Can the Legislature
Barter Away the Public Welfares Il
License ConstitutIonals
Special Correspondence)
The National Anti Nuisance League
Is pursuing an investigation which is
very interesting to social refOrmers.
AS is well known the League intends
to attack in the Courts the constitu-
tionality Of liquor license and revenue
laws, and already some cases have
been started with view to test the
matter.
Secretary John Lloyd Thomas Of
the League recently sent the following
letter to 1000 of the leading lawyers
Of the land, and to number Of states
men:
NATIONAL ANTI-NUISANCE LEAGUE
10 East 14th Street,
NEW YORK, June 10, 1891.
DEAR SIR:
The U. s. Supreme Court in the case
Of California VS.. Christensen declared
as follows: There are no inherent
rights in citizen to sell intoxicating
liquors by retail; it is not a privilege
of citizen of State, or of q citizen of
the United States"
In the same decision the following
statement was made: 'The statistics
Of every State show a greater amount
of crime and misery attributable to
the use Of ardent spirits obtained at
these retail liquor saloons than to any
other source"
The National Anti Nuisance League
believes that it can be established by
competent evidence that the liquor
traffic is constant menace to public
and private morals, health and safety;
that it diminishes property values,
while advancing insurance charges
and increasing taxes necessary to pay
the expenses Of courts, jails, hospi-
tails and poor-houses largely due to
this traffic. The League holds the
opinion that such effects, general in
their operation, constitute such traf-
fic a public nuisance.
The United States Supreme Court
has also declared in Stone VS.. Missis-
sippi: 'No Legislature can bargain
away the public health or the public
morals. The people themselves can
not do it, much less their servants.
Government is organized with view
to their preservation, and cannot d.
vest itself Of the power to provide fol
them"
On these grounds the National Anti
Nuisance League proposes to test in
the courts the constitutionality OF
National and State laws licensing OF
obtaining revenue from the afore-
said traffic. This purpose is encour-
aged by able lawyers in all parts Of
the country.
Willyou kindly answer the questions
on the enclosed circular and return il
to the office? Our object is to secure
consensus of opinion from the ablest
lawyers in the land, not only for our
own information, but for the purpose
OF public enlightenment. Unless for
hidden, We would like to publish your
opinions over your own name. Trust
ing you will consider this matter oil
such grave importance as to justify
an early reply, We are,
Yours respectfully,
JOHN LLOYD THOMAS, Secretary.
w. JENNINGS DEMoREsr, President.
The following are the question:
| asked in this LEGAL INVESTIGATION:
| l.poes your legal observation bear out thu
i stafeine Mt made by the United States Supreme
| Court 10 the effect that "a greater amount Of
crime and misery Is attributable to the use Of
ardent spirits. obtained at liquoiealoons. thar
to any other source"?-U.S.S. G. Cal vs.. Chris
| Hansen.
2 Do you believe that such effects when trace
able to a particular business would constitute
1t. under the common law, public nuisancef
| 8. II 50, would not an Injunction lie to 70
/ strain such a business?
/ 4. In view Of the U. 8 g. G. decision in Stone
vs. Miss. namely: ''No legislature can bargain
away the public health or the public morals. =
could license or revenue law be pleaded
| against such an Injunction?
| 5. Do you believe the laws licensing and tax
| ing the Liquor Traf1c are Constitutional, ant
that legislatures which cannot bargain away
the public health" etc., are justified by tn
Constitution In licensing the Liquor Irai1icf
| A large number of interesting re.
plies have been received, some Of
which have already been printed. II
is worthy of note that only three per
sons answer the first question in the
negative, and the reply of Congress
man Hayes, Of Iowa, Is an example o.
them all. He says: "No. Any such
statement is patent nonsense, rot. q.
any observer Of criminal matters
knows"
On the other hand, hundreds o.
the leading lawyers, ex-judges anG
Legislators corroborate in stronges
terms the statement made by the Su
preme Court. The answer Of judge
William H. Armour, of New York city
is a fair specimen of the replies K
this question. He says: "Most as
suredly. 1t is conservative state
ment. A careful study Of the question
for years leads me to the conviction
that double the amount of crime.
poverty. disease and pauperism is du,
| W OlAh ~ al OtI1C
sources combined.
John W. Kendall, Esq, of Ken
lucky, writes on this point: "As
practising lawyer for twenty-five
years and prosecuting attorney ter
years, will say that more crime AM
misery is attributable to the use of ar
dent spirits than all other causes"
The answers to the other questions
vary widely. To the surprise of tn,
Investigators most Of the correspond
ents concur in the opinions expressed
by the League, and declare that
business which is responsible for sucl
results is nuisance, and that lcens
and revenue laws cannot be pleade,
successfully in injunction proceed
ings.
! Hon. VIM. M. Price, a Hancock an,
English elector, and now a prominen
lawyer in Western Pennsylvania, is
fair example Of these replies. HI
writes:
2. Il do.
8. WithOt doubt.
4. Not successfully, if the Court doe
not reverse itself.
s. I do not believe such laws Con
stitutional, and no legislature is JUST
| fed in enactiDo sllch laws -