The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1894-04-25

tStSoSS Nv
in the 12:b section of the lst article to
declare explicitly that no person shall
be prevented from acquiring holding aud
transmitting property.
Now, then, what are these inalienable
rights of personal. liberty and private
property thus emphatically asserted and
carefully guarded, and what do they
necessarily involve? As is said by
Earl, J. in re Jacobs, SO N. Y, So,
reported also in so Am Rep. 636: "Thc
constitutional guaranty that no per-
shall be deprived Of his property without
due process Of law may be violated
without the physical taking Of property
for public or private use. Property
may be destroyed, or its value may be
annibilated !; it is owned and kept for
some useful purposes and it has no value
unless i. can be used. Its c~apability
for enjoyment and adaptability to some
use are essential characteristics and
attributes without which property can
not be conceived aud hence any law
which destroys it or its value, or takes
away any Of its essential attributes.
deprives the owner of his property.
The constitutional guaranty would be of
little worth if the Legislature could,
without compensation, destroy property
or its value, deprive the owner Of its use.
deny him the right to live in his own
house. or to work at any lawful trade
therein"
Blackstone 10 i Comm, 1873, says;
1.-THE third absolute right inherent 10
every Englishmau ia that of property /;
which consists in the free use, enjoy
ment and disposal Of all his ac-
QUESTIONS without any control or
diminution save only by the laws
of the land" To same effect see
what is said by Miller. j., 10 Pumpelly
VS. Green Bay Company, Is Wall, at
pages 177-78, also what is said by
Comstock. j., in Wynchamber vs.
People, II N. Y, 1913, and by An
drews. j., in People vs. Otis, 80 N. Y,
48, See also what is said by the same
Judge in Bertholf vs. O'Reilly, 80 Am
Rep, a. page 1928, "a N. Y, 500.
Again it is said in the case in re
Jacobs Supra: $50 too one may be
deprived Of his liberty, aud constitu-
t%isional rights thereto violated without
the actual Imprisonment or restraint Of
his person. Liberty in Its broad sense,
as understood in this country. means
the right not only Of freedom from
actual servitude, dishonor, imprisonment
or restraint, but the right of one to use
his faculties in all lawful ways, to live
and work where be will, to earn his
livelihood 10 any lawful calling. and to
pursue any lawful trade as an avoca-
tion." See also. to the same effect,
what is said by Mr.. Justice Field in his
%coocurring opinion Of Butchers Union
Co VS. Crescent City Go. Ill .. S. Rep.
at pages 1861, and what is said by Mr..
Justice Bradley 10 his concurring opin-
ion in the same case, in which he was
joined by Mr.. Justice Harlaud and Mr..
Justice Woods, page 1854, and as was
said in Live Stock. etc. Association, VS.
Crescent City, etc. l Abb u. S.,
3S8-398: There is no, more sacred
right Of citizenship than the right to
pursue unmolested a lawful employment
in a lawful manner. Its nothing more
nor less than the sacred right Of labor"
If. then, it can be shown that the
traffic in intoxicating liquors is not in
itself unlawful, but 90 the contrary that
intoxicating liquor is a lawful subject OF
commerce, then it follows from what has
been said that the Dispensary Act, 10
so far as it undertakes to forbid every
person in this State from engaging in
such traffic conflicts With the above men
toned constitutional provisions, and is
therefor null aud void, unless such
legislation can be defended as an
exercise of what is known as the police
power, a question which will be here
after considered. We do not see how
it can be denied that such a traffic is
lawful. Judge Cooley 10 his work Oh
Constitutions Limitations, at pages
1884. says 10 express terms that it is
lawful. and every one Of the numerous
cases decided by the Supreme Cour,
Of the United States. involving ques.
tons where State Legislation designed tc
prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors,
are effected by the Interstate commerce
clause of the Constitution Of the United
States, necessarily imply that intozica
ting liquor is a subject of lawful COM
merce. for. otherwise such questions
could not arise.
1t was only upon this ground that the
decision in the case Of Leisy VS. Hardin,
1876 U. S Rep, 100, was or could be
defended. There the question was
whether such liquor imported into the
| Co.. e.. a.. Co. rio4