The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-06-10
SATURDAY, JUNE 10, 1905.
A DANGEROUS ASSUMPTION.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee re- gently rendered decision which seems to trench very closely on the absurd. The criminal code of that State makes it unlawful to give liquor to a minor without the consent of the parents" Many States have such a provision, and we think all good people will agree that the law is a wise one and should be rigidly enforced. Giving or selling liquor to children is an offense for which there is no defence. unless in very unusual circumstances, and those guilty of doing so should be promptly punished.
 In this Tennessee case, however the defendant offered in evidence a written order from the mother of the boy, she being a widow and his lawful guardian stating: You may give my child drinks of whiskey or brandy at any time you may desire to do so." There was no question as to the genuineness of the paper or of the signature, and whatever we may think of a mother who would voluntarily consent to the brutalization of her child, we must ad- init that the dealer was not to blame for believing that this written au- thority relieved him of all legal blame We can have our own opinion of man who will give liquor to a child. but we must admit that he had right to consider himself legally blameless.
 lBut the Superior Court held a differ ent opinion. It held that this written consent of the mother was properly excluded. 'as the Legislature iutend- ed to give the parent power to con- sent to the giving of liquor to minor only in eases of emergency" Just how the ourt could decide what the Legislature intended to do, in the ab- Eence of anything showing evidence of intention, is too many for us. Supreme Courts are usually well informed, but we doubt if any one of them is wise enough to tell what an average Legis- Iature intended to do in any given case. The members themselves don't always know, either what they intend or in- tended to do.
 We note that much better authority on legal matters than we profess to be has an even more unfavorable opin- ion of the decision than we have ex- pressed. The editor of Law Notes" says the decision 'is of course not good law, and is valuable chiefly as showing how far courts will sometimes go in giving an offender the punishment they think he deserves, even though he be to the wind of the law. Such a con struction of a penal statute cannot be justified on any legal grounds"
 We should say that the decision is "to the wind of the law" and very much so. And yet The Chattanooga News allows itself to be convinced that the Court was right and reasons that "the Legislature clearly intended that the parent should not be allowed to give a dealer the right to sell liquor to children promiscuously." The News Is also willing to explain what the lawmakers intended, in which position it has as little to sustain it as the Court had In our judgment there will be little to hope for the liberties of the people of this Republic. if the time ever comes when courts take it upon themselves to say what any Legisla- tive body intended to do, and upon their construction of that intention virtually enact and enforce criminal statutes of their own motion. Selling or giving liquor to a child Is bad enough, but it is not nearly so hurtful pr dangerous as Is the usurpation oi legislative powers by courts, or the assumption that courts can penetrate tha. Intentions of law makers,