The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1907-07-12
Jos. N. AYERS.

Boone county. Ind. where the case OF
Young vs.. Soltau was tried. This was
a remonstrance against the granting
OF license 10 Soltau and the learned
Judge holds. IN effect. that the liquor
business Is an outlaw. that II has no
legal status In court and that In brief
Il Is rather public nuisance.
I'm support OF this position. Judge
Artman cites great many decisions
by state supreme courts. the most six.
niilcant OF which is the following
from the case OF State Vs. Aiken. 26 L.
II. A. 3i5 OF South Carolina:
Liquor In its, nature Is dangerous TO
the morals. good order health. and
safety OF the people. and Is not 10 be
placed ON the same footing with the
ordinary commodities OF life. such as
corn. wheat. potatoes. cotton. etc.
lie shows clearly by these various
state decisions that the privilege TO
engage In the business as an inherent
or common law right OF citizenship ~
denied In these cases upon the ground
that business Is attended with danger
to the safety. peace. good order. health
morals. and welfare Of the commu.
nifty"
Il Is probably true that. as the learn.
cd editor OF the Central law Journal
says. the supreme court Of the United
States holds the liquor business on the
same plane as gambling. prize fighting.
etc. and In the ease quoted. Crowley
W. Christensen. i31 u. s Sc. Il Is pos.
itlycly on record as declaring that "liy
the general concurrence OF opinion OF
every civilized and Christian commun.
ity. there are few sources OF crime and
misery 20 society equal 90 the dram.
shop. where intoxicating liquors. IN
small quantities. Ca be- drunk nc the
time. are sold indiscrlminatcly 20 an
parties applying. etc"
II will thus be- seen that when the
rum business gets into court and at.
tcmpts 90 stand upon the inherent
rights Il u practically without any
status whatever. In fact after Rad.
INK the accumulated decisions Of years
and noting that the case OF Young yE
Soltau was promptly dropped on ~.
cciying the decision Of Judge Artman.
Il a. quite within the bounds OF posi-.
hllity that upon an appeal 90 the M.
prcmc court 81 the United States. that
august tribunal would have held that
the state Of Indiana had no right to ~
ccnac the sale Of liquor. az the latter
vas n menace 90 society.
All this u In direct opposition 10 the
general trend Of sentiment and the
usual claim OF the licensed saloon sell
era OF intoxicating liquors that theirs
IN "a legitimate business and entitled
10 the protection 81 the Law. Lawyers
and students 81 state liquor laws will
watch with interest the movement in
Indiana. which nov seeks 20 place the
supreme court ON record ~ definitely
affirming that the various states have
no right 10 license the sale OF liquor
any more than they have To license
prize fighting. gambling or houses Of
900 flame.
A. far as Vermont IL concerned. our
supreme court in passing on the pres
mt license law. has practically Conccd
"a that Il ~ constitutional This. hoW.
ever. would not prevent the supreme
court Of the United States from ruling
aa u seems likely 90 do. that the whole
business ~ licensing the sale ~ intux
icating liquor u improper and uucun.
stitutional. Montpelier Journal