The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1895-01-01
HENCE PROHIBITION LAWS.
Decision by the Supreme Court
ON the Question.
NO DISTINCTIONS TO BE DRAWN.
Intended by the Legislature That the
Whole Race Should Enjoy
Forced Abstinence.


is lawful to deprive the festive Indian oil
his morning cocktail. The law prohibit
ing the sale of liquor to the noble red man
in this State admits of no exceptions. Ii
includes not only the chief surrounded by
his sQuaws, but also The emaDcipated
buck who wears stovepipe hat, is admit
ted to citizenship and endeavors in every
way to disabuse the public mind of the
Byronian theory.
The case in which the Supreme Court
has so openly declared itself is that of the
People against Bray. Likewise the People
against Goodrich; likewise the People
against Lemon. The case against Bray
was made the test case.
Bray was convicted of the crime OF sell
ing liquor to an Indian woman named
Mary Smith. In violation of Section 397 of
the Penal Code, which reads as folio VS.
Every person who sells or furnishes or
causes to be sold or furnished, any intoxi-
eating liquors t. any habitua or common
drunkard, is guilty of a misdemeanor; or
who sells or furnishes, or causes to be sold
or furnished, Intoxicating liquors to any
Indian, is guilty of felony"
1t was admitted at the trial that Bray
sold Mary Smith the liquor, and that she
had no other than Indian blood in her
veins. 1t was further shown that the
own, and both dressed like white people
and had adopted the customs of civilized
life. Her father was fisherman and sold
his fish in Santa Rosa. He owned prop
erty and neither the parents nor the girl
had ever lived upon any Government res
ervation, ''Dor had they lived In tribal re-
Iations or under or subject to the control
of any chief or like authority"
On this showing the defendant asked the
court to instruct the jury that he had not
violated the section of the Penal Code
under which he was arraigned; that the
Indian in question was citizen of the
United States, living separate and apart
from any tribe of Indians; also. that all
citizens were entitled TO equal protection,
account of color or race any privilege
which others are legally permitted and al
lowed to enjoy is void as to euch person.
The court, however, refused so TO in
struct the jury, and Bray was convicted.
10 taking an appeal 10 the Supreme Court
he contended that this refusal of the court
WAS error He commended that under the
facts shown this Mary Smith was citizen
of the United States; and that section 1877
of the Penal Code applied only to those
Indians who were under control of the
General Government as dependent COM
munities who are living in tribal relations,
or upon Government reservations, and as
such deemed wards of the Govern ment;
also. that if the said section was not so
limited by construction. it was void, be-
cause IL Disseminated between citizens of
the United States, denying TO the citizen
of Indian birth the privilege Of buying in
toxicating liquors which was accorded to
the citizens of white race.
Tie Supreme Court, in deciding in favor
s,,a, Of ha
the act OF Congress by which every Indian
born within the territorial limits of the
United States, and living apart from his
tribe. was declared 10 be citizen and en-
titled to all the rights, privileges, etc. But
it is held by the court that section 1917 of
the Penal Code forbids the sale or giving
OF liquors to Indians of full blood, without
references to the question whether they
have or have not adopted the habits Of civ
iliZation or separated themselves from
tribal relations. 1t was intended to apply
to Indians as class, and was enacted in
view of their well-known race peculiarities
and their relations to society,""
Other decisions and opinions on the SUBJ
iect are quoted, and then the Supreme
Court says: Wherever the law allows the
sale of liquor, under licenses or other re-
strictions, there are statutes forbiddng
such sale to ceI tain classes of persons. who
are peculiarly liable to be injured or de-
moralized by Indulgence In alcoholic bev-
erages. such as minors, persons already
intoxicated and habtual drunkards. The
constitutionality of such laws has seldom
been questioned, and, indeed, their valid
ity could scarcely be assaled with any
show of reason. (Black on intoxicating
LIQUORS, sec. ~.
Whatever NAV be true in respect to
part cular individuals of that race. it is
certainly true that Indians as a class do
not have refinement, culture and civiliza-
ton ia the same degree as persons of the
white race, and doubtless in the Judgment
Of the Legislature they are less subject
to moral restraint, and, therefore, more
liable to be dangerous TO themselves or
Others when under the influence of liquor;
or less able TO resist the desire for such
liquors, and for that reason were thought
entitled to the protecting influence Of this
statute"
On these grounds the Judgment against
Bray is affirmed; and following upon that
decision. the same is decided OF the cases
against Goodrich and Lemon. Aud the
poor Indian no longer commands fire.
water in this State.