Essex County herald. [volume] (Guildhall, Vt.) 1873-1964, 1907-07-19
Is the Statute Licensing the Sale
of intoxicating Liquor as a
Beverage Constitutional 7

Tue great l'S''A VI - ~ |
business aud professional men oi
indianapolis, who made the campaign
raising the question, this case was not
appealed. However, the Sopher case
was later decided in the same way toy
the lower court, but has since been re
versed by the supreme court OF that
state. The case will now go to the |.
S. supreme court, and If that court
follows its holding in the case of Crow
lev VS.. Christensen, l37 |. ). ST. 1t II |
quite likely that such statute Will To-
declared unconstitutional, thus c'osinl
the open saloon throughout the country
Judge Artmau'S opinion III the Soltan
case, in which he follows the reasoning
in Crowley VS.. Christensen, above,
logical and convincing, and should ht
read universally. Certain extracts, how.
ever, are all the space here permits =
"The ultimate question for declslo
in this case is whether or not the sale OF
Intoxicating liquors, at retail, for bever-
age purposes, can be legally licensed.
The court has no inclination to evadr
or side-step this proposition. =
By section | of the Bill of Rights 1t Is
declared that the government Of this S,ate
is institute for the peace, safety and
well being of the people. ~ IL
the absence of any license statute, what
is the legal status of the saloon business
Does it stand upon the same basis as
the business of the farmer, the manu-
facturer or the merchant? Ia Other
words, is it one of the inherent common
law rights of citizenship to engage IN
the saloon business p
After reviewing several cases, the
judge continues
"The quintessence OF all these hold
ings is that, when measured 10y the com
mon law, the saloon business is unlaw-
full, and, therefore, without legal exis
tence. In other words, in the absence
of a statute legaizing the business, com
mon law prohibition prevails.
The courts are now practically agreed
upon the judgment that intoxicating
liquor does not stand upon the SAINT
footing as breadstutfs and that the
saloon business, because it natural,
and inherently endangers the health, thu
comfort, the safety, the morals and The
welfare of the people, is inherently un
lawful and is prohibited by the common
law. Can the legislature legal
ize the destruction of the public health
the public morals and the public safety
Can the legislature make lawful, for
price, that which is unlawful, because i
contravenes the fundamental principl
of government ? Surely not"
After reviewing many cases of the |
Souip, "IPN"i
the following quotation from Crowle
VS.. Christensen, above: "The statistic
of every state show a greater amount G
crime and misery attributable to the us
of ardent spirits obtained at these reta
liquor saloons than to any other source ;
Judge Artman continues
"By section one of article eight of tn
state constitution, it is made the duty {
the General Assembly to encourage. b
all suitable means, the moral and ii
tellectual improvement of the peopl,
this imperative duty can not be di.
charged by de)egating, for money COZ
alteration, to an inherently unlawft
and immoral business the right to ext.
and subject the citizens of the state t
its baneful influence"
After reviewing more U. S. cases, tn
Judge concludes;
"Iu view of these holdings, based, a
they certainly are, upon good reason an
sound common sense, it must be hel
that the state cannot under the guise {
a license, delegate to the saloon busine.
legal existence, because to hold tia
it can is to hold that the state may Sc
and delegate the right to make widow
and orphans, the right to breakup home
the right to create misery and Grim
the right to make murderers, the rigl
to produce idiots aud unatics, the rigl
to fill orphanages, poor houses, insar
asylums, jails and pententaries aud tt
right to furnish subjects for the hang
mans gallows. The Supreme Court
Indiana, the supreme courts of man
other states and the Supreme Court {
the United States have already so fl
passed the middle of the stream upo
the question involved in the case tn;
return would now be more difficult tina
to 60 over. GO over is merely to dra
the natural, logical and inevitable COZ
clusion from the declarations aud iud
ments of the court, To return wou
mean to abandon the adjudication thu
the saloon business is unlawful at con
mon law, or to hold that busine
which has been adjudged, by the court
to be unlawful, at common law, becau'
Il naturallu nnl inhnrnnII, nndn.l,..