The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-10-22

PURPOSE, ana IN any quantity, eau be
punished"
The court. however, held that as the
constitutional provision prescribed no
penalties for it, violation, it was bar
rem of the elements of a complete law,
and while prohibitory in form, is in
fact simply a declaration of principles"
and that the provision "is not self
executing. no common law, no statu-
tory provision. existing for it's enforce
nent, hence it remains dormant, as
restriction upon the citizens, until Civ
en- life by subsequent legislation, and
has no force as a repeating measure"
and that therefore the Territorial IL
cense law stands in it's entirety" and
that therefore the defendants impris-
onment was not unlawful.
AUTHORITIES ADOPTED.
A case is cited from Massachusetts,
where a constitutional provision was
adopted prohibiting forever the manu-
facture and sale of intoxicating liquors,
and directing the Legislature to enact
laws with suitable penalties for carry
ing out such provision. There it was
held that the constitutional provision
did not repeal previously existing laws
by implication pending action of the
Legislature in the matter Judge Gear
comments as follows:
| 1 agree with the reasoning of these
authorities and believe the case at bar
| falls within the principles laid down in
the cases cited. These cases go even
farther than the case at bar, for under
/ both the constitution of Maine and
| North Dakota it was intended to have
absolute prohibition in the liquor traf-
| fic, and yet it was held that the former
liquor laws were not repealed, and
would not be until there had been leg
| islative action. In this case it is clear
that congress did not intend to pro-
hibit the liquor traffic, but on the con-
trary to allow it under the ''regula-
lions and restrictions of the legisla-
ture. In this connection it seems to
me appropriate to quote from the
United States Supreme Court as to
what is commonly called 1.-The right of
citizens" to engage in the liquor traffic,
and their statement as to the consti.
! tutionality of the liquor laws and the
right of the legislature to regulate the
| traffic. A defendant had been found
guilty of selling liquor without license,
and claimed that this arrest was lille
gal, as the ordinance under which he
was convicted was unconstitutional.
The court in unanimous opinion
said per Field, j..
QUESTION OF RIGHTS.
''It is undoubtedly true that it is
the right of every citizen of the United
States to pursue any lawful trade or
business, under such restrictions as are
imposed upon all persons of the same
age, sex and condition. But the DOS
! session and enjoyment of all rights are
| subject to such reasonable conditions
as may be deemed by the governing
authority of the country essential to the
safety, health. peace, good order and
morals of the community.
For the pursuit of any lawful trade
or business, the law imposes similar
conditions. Regulations respecting
them are almost infinite, varying with
| the nature of the business. Some oc-
equations by the noise made in their
pursuit, some by the odors they en-
gender and some by the dangers ac-
companying them, require regulations
as to the locality in which they shall
be conducted. Some by the dangerous
character of the articles used, manu-
| featured or sold require, also, special
qualifications in the parties permitted
to use, manufacture or sell them. All
| this is but common knowledge, and
would hardly be mentioned were it not
| for the position often taken, and
vehemently pressed, that there is
| something wrong in principle and OBJ
jectionable in similar restrictions when
applied to the business of selling by
retail, in small quantities, spirituous or
| Intoxicating liquors. 1t is urged that,
as the liquors are used as a beverage,
| and the injury following them, if TAX
en- to excess, is voluntarily inflicted
and is confined to the party offending,
their sale should be without restric-
I tions, the contention being that what
a man shall drink, equally with what
| he shall eat, is not properly matter
| for legislation.
DRINK EVIL FAR-REACHING
There is in this position an assumD-
ton of a fact which does not exist,
that when the liquors are taken in eX-
| cess the injuries are confined to the
party offending. The injury, it is true,
first falls upon him in his health, which
the habit undermines; in his morals,
which it weakens; and in the self
abasement which it creates; but, as il
leads to neglect of business and waste
of property and general demoraliza-
ton, it affects those who are imme-
diately connected with and dependent
upon him. By the general concurrence
of opinion of every civilized and Chris
tan community. there are few sources
of crime and misery to society equal to
the dram shop, where intoxicating
liquors, in small quantities, TO be
drunk at the time are sold indiscrim-
inately to all parties applying"
CONCLUSION OF COURT.
1t is the opinion of the Court that
the statutes of the Republic of Hawaii
relating to the liquor traffic are in full
force and effect excepting as they have
been expressly repealed by the Legisla-
ture or the Organic act, and that the
section under which this defendant was
indicted is in full force and effect, and
J,