Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1903-02-05
Law IS HELD VALID
Ottumwans Watch Closely for
Inebriate Law.
UDGE M'VEY'S LATEST OPINION
Defendants Attorneys Attack the
Law as Unconstitutional Because it
Permits Incarceration Without Jury
Trial.

Ottumwans who took an interest in
the dipsomaniac law and favored it's
passage at the last session of the as
sembly have manifested a considera-
bic interest in the status of the law
and have closely watched the decision
OF the various judges of the state who
have been called upon to issue orders
for it's enforcement. 1t is believed
that the most notable case and one
that has been watched with the great
est interest throughout the state, was
that brought to incarcerate Matte
Spelling, before Judge McVey of Des
Moines. The attorneys for the de-
PENDANT made claim before the court
that the law was unconstitutional in
asmuch as it provides for the arrest
and incarceration of a person with
trial by jury. This case came before
Judge McVey Saturday for decision.
In rendering his opinion Judge Nc
Vey said in substance:
The first question presented for the
determination of this court is whether
or not there is any constitutional pow
er under this statute to commit per-
son addicted to dipsomania, inebriety
or the excessive use of narcotics to
the hospital for inebriates.
1t is argued. and it must be conced-
ed. that the relator was not commit
ted because of any crime which she
had committed. and if charged with
crime she would. under the constitu-
ton, have been entitled to jury trial.
1t is also argued that an inebriate can
not be treated as lunatic, and the
mere fact that the relator is addicted
to the use of intoxicating liquors to
such an extent as 30 be an inebriate
affords no constitutional justification
for her commitment to hospital for
inebriates for term of years, and in
support CT this contention several
cases are cited The case of the state
VS.. Ryan (36 N. W. Rep, S23) is the
strongest case brought to the atten-
ton OF the court and the one nearest
to the point. This case was decided
by the supreme court OF Wisconsin in
1888. In that case the statute pro-
vided that any person who shall be
charged upon the complaint of anoth-
er with being an inebriate,. habitual
or common drunkard, shall be arrest
ed and brought before a judge of a
COulI VI IGCDlu toi llldl III Tic StlliS
manner that brought before justice
of the peace; and if he. shall be con-
victed of being an inebriate, habitual
or common drunkard he shall be SEN
fenced to imprisonment or confine-
ment in any inebriate or insane asy-
lum i'll this state for period not ex,
ceeding two years, nor less than three
| months. 1t was held in that case that
al, 1,lo ,,a1 Int tny,
nal, and Notwithstanding this view the
law was held to be unconstitutional
or the ground that 1.-The act in qlles-
ton does not proceed upon the theory
of protecting the public health, nor
the public safety. nor the personal
safety of the victim, nor as punish
ment for the crime. On the contrary,
it proceeds upon the sole theory that
the victim may be arrested. brought
before judge of court of record at
chambers, and if found by him to be
an incbriate, habitual or common
drunkard, he may without the exist
ence of any other fact or condition,
and without any trial in any court OF
| law, imprison him for two years, with
out any provision for his release. We
are forced to the conclusion that the
| relator has been deprived of his lib
| erty without due process of law, and
denied the equal protection of the
law
The only substantial difference be
| tween the Wisconsin statute and the
statute under consideration is that
section 8 provides for the parole o.
| the person committed after thirty
! days of treatment and detention, II
such patient shall appear to be cur
ed and if the physician in charge ant
superintendent of the institution shall
so recommend, then the governor
shall parole said patient.
The supreme court of Wisconsin
seems to have placed considerable
emphasis upon the fact that the ac
contemplates no restoration, no posi-
bility of reformation within the time
thus arbitrarily fixed
The court then adds, while the
state should take compassionate
charge of any who are dangerous tt
| themselves or others. 1t is equal.
| bound to protect the personal rights
and liberties of every harmless ant
law abiding citizen, capable of taking
care of himself, his family and hi
property, however weak and unfortu
nate he may be in other respects"
That the parole provision of the
statute under consideration consti.
tutes a substantial and importan
difference from the Wisconsin stat
ute above considered is quite clear
AS to whether or not such provision
for parole relieves the statute of thu
constitutional objection will be furth
er considered.
Paternal statutes which have gon,
to the extent of authorizing the de
tention and custody of persons wht
by reason of being insane or SO addict
ed to the use of intoxicating liquors
as to render them dangerous to tn,
community at large, have frequentl.
been upheld. In the case of in n
Lynch page 120, it was said with re
gard to a statute which gave tn,
chancery court custody and contro
of the person as well as the estate o
an habitual drunkard that such powe
of the court was Put precisely upol
the same ground as it's powers owe
the persons and estates of idiots ant
lunatics," that court saying tina
Whenever the court is satisfied tina
such person is so far reformed tina
L &C.,