The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-09-03
A BENEF|CENT ACT
Watts Law and Its Value
to the State.
The Democratic Hand Book Sets Forth
the Many Virtues Claimed For it
Without Fear of Honest
Contradiction.

Act:
The Watts act horbids the safe or
manufacture of intoxicating liquors
within the State of North Carolina eX-
cept in Incorporated cities or towns
TO this limitation there are certain
exceptions, namely:
CD Such liquors may pe sold by
druggists. in town OF country, upon
proper prescriptions.
CD Wine or cidera manufactured
from grapes. berries or fruits raised
on the lands of the person SO manu-
featuring, or purchased by the manu-
facturer from the growers thereof. are
excepted from the application of this
act.
CD "This act shall not apply to
brandy manufactured from fruit or
grapes and sold in original packages
of not less than five gallons"
N. B.-Observe the protection
VouchSafed the farmer.
Towns and Cities.
In the second place the Watts act
provides that towns and cities may
vote on the drink questions upon pc
titiOn of one-third of the qualified
voters, and that in such elections the
will of the majority shall hold. The
vote may be on the following CUES
tons: For Distilleries.' Against
DistIleries': For Saloons" Against
Saloons: "Foc Dispensaries. Against
DiSpenSarieS."
This is nothing more or less than
a fair and square local option law.
enabling our towns and cities to take
such measures to govern the tra1nC III
Intoxicating liquors as may seem best.
The Right to Treat the Drink Problem
In order that the uniformed may
no bodies
whether nation. State. town or CITY,
have full right to treat the drink pro-
blem. the following utterances of the
Supreme Court OF the United States
NAV be cited:
mo Legislature can bargain away
the public health or the public morals
The people themselves cannot do it.
much less their servants.
Government is organized with a view
to their preservation. and can not di-
vest itself of the power to provide for
them. stone VS.. Mississippi. 10I> u.
S.. SIG.
IF the publis faety or the public
morals require the discontinuance of
any manufacture or traffic, the hand
Of the Legislature can not be stayed
from providing for it's discontinuance
by any Incidental Inconvenience which
individuals or corporations may Sut-
U. s., 80.
The State cannot by any contract
limit the exercise of her power to the
prejudice of the public health and the
public morals. ''--Butcher Union Co,
VS.. Crescent City, Co., Ill u. S., 751.
There is 10 inherent right in a citi-
zen TO thus sell intoxicating liquors
by retail; il is not a privilege of "a citi-
zen of a State or of Il citizen OF the
nit CT
sen. 1877 u. S., sc.
For we cannot shut out Of view the
fact, within the knowledge of ALL that
the public health, the public morals,
and the public safety may be endan-
gered by the general use of intoXicat-
ing drinks; nor the fact. established
by statistics accessible to every one,
that the idleness, disorder, pauperism
and crime existing in the country are
in some degree at least. traceable to
the evil. "-Mugler VS.. Kansas, 1Zo'
U. s.. 623.
1.-The statistics of every State show
q greater amount of crime and mis-
cry attributable to the use of ardent
spirits obtained at these liquor saloons
than to any other source CROWLEY
US. Christensen, 1877 u. s., Sc.
Hon. Justice Grier said: 1T is not
necessary to array the appalling statls-
y,
which have their origin in the use and
abuse of ardent spirits. The police
power, which is exclusively in the
State is competent to the correction
Of these great evils. and all measures
OF restraint or prohibition necessary
TO effect that purpose are within the
scope of that authority, and If a loss
of revenue should accrue to the Uni
ted States from diminished consump-
ton of ardent spirits, she Will be
gamer a thousandfod in the health,
wealth, and happiness of the people.
IS Howard, 532.
The n. c. Supreme Court.
In thorough accord with these utter
ances is the recent decision OF the
present Supreme Court of North Car
DINA in the case from Washington,
N. c., in which the following positions
were taken, Justice Montgomery hand
ing down the decision:
mo question can be raised in this
case as to the power of the board or
aldermen to pass reasonable ordin-
ances to restrict and regulate the IL
quor traffic in Washington, and even
to prohibit it if they see fit to do
So
'In the consideration of the reason
ableness of these ordinances, 1t must
be understood that they are to pc us
cussed from the point of view or our
State legislation on the subject OF the
liquor traffic. and the decisions OF our
court upon that legislation. me re-
and limitations with Whlch
the legislative branch of our govern
ment for many years past, at the de-
mand of a strong and aggressive SEN
timent, individual and public, against
the evils of intemperance, nave enNl-
roned this traffic, and the firm support
of this legislation by the courts, at
for unmistakable evidence that the
traffic is dangerous to society in it's
moral effects, and injurious to the ma
terial welfare of the commonwealth.
q From the standpoint of the
statute law on the subject and the
decisions of the court the rule with
reference to what the law would re-
gard as undue restrictions upon a use
full business cannot be the same as
that applicable to the liquor traffic
What would be a deprivation of the
use of property without due process of
law, or an infringement of personal
liberty against one engaged in a USE |
full trade, would not be such when con- |
in connection with the prop. |
erty or person with one engaged in the |
sale of Intoxicating liquors, as is point |
ed out in State VS.. Ray, where the |
court said 1t must be understood |
that they (saloons) stand on a very