Alma record. (Alma, Mich.) 1878-1928, 1902-04-04
A Brilliant Address

, AfyIhS pan INTO the IRE. he remedy
| tney proposed Mas oil course " De Iounu
al our subsequent legislation. DO at the
nTst session VI our legislature alter the
adoption Oh the constitutional clause and
IL 1901, tney got together anu caused an
act 10 Ce passed designed To regulate
ehe Iquor LraInc." VI course they dare
not LAX about "IegaAzing OF "hcens-
ING The trainc,so they speak OF "Tegu-
| .allng the traihc.'
inns act is known as Act l1S of the SEES
| siOn LAWS oI 1851.
| Al this point let me note moral IL not
"a iesaI question: how tar should
| ne principles OF jurisprudence DC
| cent 10 accommodate the prin-
| ~IpIes and notions OF the peo-
pie! My answer is, Not one particle"
out We're they? Through the labor
anG inlIuence Oh our gooa people the con-
sutuuon mad prohibited the legislature
Irom granting any license 10 sell ardent
spirits OF intoxicating liquors, anu
through The InnueDce oI The same people
the legislature Oh 1901 PROVIDED Dy IegIs-
lat!Ne enactment that whoever should
sell liquor without nrst giving a bono
Tor The payment Oh damages Lnat dlrect-
~ or indirectly arise from the sale OF
sucn liquors should come under certain
penalty. vi course the necessary lnIer-
enCe Nas, that whoever should Sell such
liquors alter giving the bond should not
DC liable Tor such penalty. The object
oI our prohibition friends Of the time was
evidently TO suppress the sale OF liquors
Oy means of GdlncuIties thrown in the
way of the traffic. But 1t operated lust
the reverse, everybody gave the bond
ana avoided the penalty and implicitly
at least secured the license. But the
supreme court 10 help out our superb
cIaI and presumptIous Trienos sustain
ed the law and said that the bond was
not d License but an obstacle" TO the
safe, when in truth and in tact the Civ
ING OF the bond was the only encourage
ment then known 10 the Jaw 10 engage
IL the traffic. The supreme court had
~ this way, as view 1t, benz the princi-
pies OF pure jurisprudence to help out
the excellent notions OF our good people
see Langley V. Ergensinger, Mich, d.
Si'. 80 tor ali practical purposes this
piece OF legislation known as regulat-
ing The liquor traffic was consigned 10
the dump heap.
But they got their heads together again
and caused the legislature OF 1893 TO
pass another act entitled An act pro-
hIbiting the manufacture Of intoxicating
beverages and the traffic therein" APP
proved February 18th, 1853. This sta
tute in like manner was found 10 be un- |
satisfactory TO its advocates. 1t did not |
and could not be made 10 stop the manu- |
Iacture of intoxicating liquors and the |
traffic therein in this state. Further |
more, If it could, ii was found that the |
entire product of home consumption |
could oe transported from without TO |
within the state and as the enemies of |
the prohibition showed no disposition |
10 boycott the nonresident producer,
it too could not be made 10 solve the |
problem. SO Ii along with its elder |
brother Of 1851 was buried in the scrap |
pile of sure cures.
And they got their heads together |
again. and when the legislature of 1856 |
met in regular session they presented |
what was supposed by them TO be lead |
pipe cinch on the liquor traffic. 1t is
known as the act approved Feb. g.
1900, and commonly known as
the 'Prohibitory liquor law" en-
titled, IAN act 20 prevent the manu-
facture and sale Of spirituous and intox-
icaung liquor as a beverage" The |
first case reported in Michigan under
this act is the case Of People V. Gala
CHER, Mich, p. 246.
This act permitted druggists only un-
der certain restrictions TO sell liquors |
for mechanical, medicinal and sacre-
mental purposes. Gallagher was con-
victeG of selling liquor under this law
not being druggist. He appealed his
case to the supreme court Of this state
He flung the constitutional provision OF
our prohibition friends squarely In their
face. He said TO the supreme court:
Your law licenses the sale Of ardent
spirits and Intoxicating liquors; il is
therefore unconstitutional and void"
Ii would really seem at this distant day
that this contention was well taken and
that this act really did license" the sale
OF ardent spirits and intoxicating liquor
prohibited by the constitution. 1t GER
tainly did license druggists TO sell II for
certain purposes. L ask, could the con-
stitutioral clause &c construed To mean
that you could sell II In a drug store for
mechanical purposes. but not In a tavern
for purely consumptive purposes? Still |
this statute was construed by the su-
preme court to be a regulation" and /
not a license" and IL was sustained
under the solemn sancity OF a judicial
OATH In my humble Judgment, thesu-
preme court bent the principles Of pure
to meet public clamor
and did in this way give us through ex-
pediency. a prohibition law and helped
the rabid prohibitionists of the time out
Of the hole in which they had placed |
themselves by the constitutional amend
ment Of 1850. But for my part am glad
that the law was sustained and the peo-
pie given the opportunity 10 test by &C
tua1 experience what was claimed TO be |
a solution for the recognized evil OF the
time
This act supposed to be the perfection
OF human skill to stamp out intemper-
ance In Michigan by legislative enact
ment, remained on our statute book |
with slight modification from time 10
time, from 1855 to 1875. AS read this
statute ! said to myself this Is indeed
as perfect piece of temperance legisla-
ton as can well be compiled by human
hands. And am thankful for the proud
record that the state OF Michigan has
made to stamp out the curse OF intern