Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1903-02-05
sound mind or an habitual drunkard

SOUND IQlUQ OF an ndDlIudl QTunhdIu
incapable of managing his affairs.
This court will take judicial notice
of the fact that person addicted to
the use of intoxicating liquors to such
an extent as to be properly termed an
lnebriate becomes while so under the
influence of such liquor incapable of
taking care of himself or herself, and
in many instances subjects those who
come in contact with them to injury
and harm, and that such persons fire.
quently destroy Or injure the private
property of those about them and in
fiict serious and even fatal injury
upon innocent citizens; and that a
person addicted to the excessive use
of intoxicating liquors is often in fact
more dangerous to person and prop
erty than a person who is insane.
That the state may protect itself from
the inebriate acts, and the inebriate
himself from the consequences of his
own acts by proper legislation.
/ am, therefore, of the opinion that
so far as the attack upon this law is
based upon the want of power on the
part of the state to enact this statute,
that the objection is not well taken.
The next objection to the law is that
the statute fails to provide for a con-
stitutional trial, in fact fails to pro-
vide for any trial, and especially that
the relator was deprived of trial by
jury to which she was constitutionally
entitled.
The relator was not charged with
the commitment of crime, but is
charged with being an inebriate, that
is to say, with being person who on
account of the excessive use of intoxl-
eating liquors has become a menace
to and danger to those about her and
to the public, and especially has be-
come in such condition as to require
treatment through the methods pro-
vided in the statute. The supreme
court Of Iowa in the case of the corn-
ty of Blackhawk VS.. Springer, eX-
pressly held that the provisions of our
constitution providing that in all cases
involving the life or, liberty the ac-
cused shall have a speedy trial before
an impartial jury, has application only
to accusations for offenses against the
criminal law and does not apply to an
inquest of lunacy by board of COM
missioners as provided by statute, and
the opinion holds that the restraint
of an insane person by virtue of the
finding of a commission is not uncon-
stitutional on account of such person
being deprived of jury trial. The
court uses this language:
at is clear to US that this provision
of the constitution applies only to
criminal prosecutions or accusations
for offenses against the criminal law
where it is sought to punish the offend
err by fine or Imprisonment. The in
quest Of lunacy by a board of commits
sioners is in no sense a criminal pro-
ceeding. The restraint of an insane
person is not designed punishment
for an act done. The insane are by
the law taken into care and custody
of the state for treatment for their I'M
fortunate infirmities."
In short the court holds that trial
| by jury in such cases is not consti-
| tutional right. This case was affirm
ed in Re Brcsee, 50 Iowa, AT. 1t has
| been frequently adiudicated that the
term used in the constitution due pro
cess of law does not require trial
| by jury in states where the legisla-
/ ture has otherwise provided. See
| Montana Company VS. st. Louis Min
| ing and Milling company, 1852 U. s..
I page 100; Hurtano VS. People, 40 U
S., SIG; Walker VS. Sauvinet. % U. S
| so. See also, Chavannes VS. Priestley
| so Iowa, ZIG.
| am clearly of the opinion that the
state has the right to commit a per-
son who is insane or an inebriate un
| der due forms of the law without the
verdict of a jury.
1t has been said in criticism of the
law that it is far reaching in its ap
| plication and that it is a dangerous
exercise Of the paternal powers of the
| legislature On the other hand, the
| law las been highly commended as {
long step toward the suppression ant
control of the evil resulting from the
excessive use of intoxicating liquors
1t is perhaps true that both the oppo
nents and the defenders of this law
have taken more or less exaggerated
views of its provisions. 1t may BIZ
well to say that it is not every person
who is addicted to the use of intoXi
eating liquors or even to the eXces-
4 sive use of narcotics that is amenablt
to the provisions of this statute. 81
long as person is not dangerous tt
4 society or to those associated will
i him in his family or neighborly rela
tons and SO long as he is able t.
take care of himself and his propert.
he cannot be lawfully committed I'm
/ der the provisions of this statute.
is only when he becomes an inebriat'
and consequently endangers societ.
and those connected with him ant
i becomes unable to care for himsel
and his property that the provisions
u of tl,is, rtntnto nlrlu if tho CT OF