Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1907-04-01
UNLAWFUL LAW.
A Sane and Profound Discussion of the
Moral and Legislative Laws.

Please permit me, through your
columns, few words with the tenn
perance people of Vermont, in con-
nection with the following which is
reproduced from the Daily Tribune of
Beaver Falls, Pa, February 10, 1907.
The utterances are timely and to the
point and / believe they will be OF
interest to your readers.
A decision recently made by Judge
s. r. Artman of the circuit court at
Lebanon, Ind in reference to the
saloon business will be of interest to
temperance people in this vicinity.
He holds that the legisla ture of his
state has no more moral right to
license the sale OF liquors than it has
to license gambling.
If the decision is upheld by the
higher courts it will cloe every
saloon in rhst state.
Judge Artman held that the retail
liquor business has no legal standing
on the ground that it is not one OF the
inherent common law rights of citi-
zenship, since the business is danger
Gus to public health, public morals
and public safety.
The legislature, Judge Artman
declared, cannot make lawful for a
price that which is unlawful, because
that Contravenes the fundamental
principle of government. In other
words, the legislature cannot legaliza
a menace to public health, nor can
the state, under the guise of police
regulation looking to the public
morals, license the saloon business.
A wealth of opinions from the
higher courts of many states and #
the Uuited States supreme court
bearing on these contentious was
quoted in the decision. Some Of the
decisions quoted showed that both
federal and state courts bad ruled
that no form Of gambling such rs lot
teries, etc could b3 legalIZeG, since
thew are a peril to the welfare Of
soCie Y. In this connection Judge
Artman pointed out many OF the
same courts had held that the sale of
intoxicant5 was a menace to he
welfare of the community, and held
therefore that if il was right 10
declare gambling unlawful it also was
right to declare liquor selling unlawful.
"Can the legislature" his decision
says, "iegalize the destruction of the
public health, the public morals, and
the public safety? Can the legisla-
ture make lawful for price til at
which is unlawful because it contra
venes the fundsme ntal principles Of
government? Surely not. In the
absence of license the police power
of the state regards any business, the
inherent character, tendency, and
effect of which is to destroy the
public health, the public morals, or
the public safety, as immoral and
unlawful. This is what the cases
heretofore cited mean by holding that
the right to engage in the sale of
intoxicating liquors is not common
| law privilege, inherent in the rights
| of citizenship.
sit is not right of citizenship
because as the cases hold, it's exist
ence is detrimental to society and
dangerous to public and private NOR
ais and to the peace and good order
of society,"
In summing up, Judge Artman said:
SIN view of these holdings based as
they certainly are upon good reason
and sound common sense, it must be
held that the state cannot under the
guise of a license delegate to the
saloon business legal existence,
because to hold that it can is TO hold
that the state may sell and delegate
the right to make widows and orphans.
the right to break up homes, the right
to create misery and crime, the right
to make murderers, the right to pro-
duce idiots and lunatics, the right &c
fill orphanages, poorhouses, insane
asylums, iails and penitentiaries, anC
the right TO furnish subjects for the
gallows."
What Judge Artman holds to bt
e true in the state of Indiana is just al
true in every state in the Union, fol
! the principles on which his deliver
h ance is based universally prevail
The philosophy by which he has beer
led to his conclusions is just as appli
!. cable in Vermont as in Indiana.
AS understand the judge, the posi-
> ton taken is that for which hav
e always commended, viz, that the en-
d gaging in such a business as tn
saloon business is not one OF tn
;. inherent, inalienable, common lav
rights or privileges of citizenship,
. therefore, as think he clearly shows
r no legislative body has the righs c
a authority to license it.
Although the judge has not, by a
exhaustive analysis, traced the philos
le ophy by which he has been led to tn
Is decision back to the fontal sourC
3, from whence the principles, {
A. rather abstract truths, on which it
Is based flow presumably not consiC
n; ering it necessary to do so), yet /
doubtless has had it in view; for sal
10 decision is manifestly the inevitab
k deduction from certain element
is principles, or distractions, which
believe no intelligent Christian W
.b deny are automatic, and which col
r. stitute a firm foundation for Il
ne deliverance given: viz, that Il
inherent or inalienable common la