The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1908-11-11
THE WARFARE AGAINST DRINK
TEMPERANCE BATTLE GATHERS
STRENGTH EVERY DAY.
The LOCALIZED Outlaw-Saloon Keep
ing Has No Constitutional Rights
- Important Court Decisions

- Important Court Decisions
For the Temperance Cause.
"A Daniel has come to judgment in
the person of Judge Samuel R. Art
man, of the Twentieth Judicial Cir
cult of Indiana. The judge would
say, however, that the decisions
which he has collected and a mass Of
testimony which support them are
the Daniel whose wisdom and integ-
rity have arisen in appeal to the citi-
zens of the Republic. In Judge Art
mans new book, THE LOCALIZED Out
law" appears the following state
:ments:
mo one possesses a constitutional
right to keep a saloon for the sale Of
intoxicating liquor" The above Ian
guage has been used by the Supreme
Court of Indiana in three different
opinions; it has been used by the Su-
preme Court of the United States and
by the Supreme Courts Of Kansas and
Michigan, and possibly others. 1t is
not mere idle expression, it means
much. 1t can hardly be regarded as
a casual remark. 1t is nothing more
than fair to presume, from the fire.
quency of its use, that the courts in
tended the full meaning of the state
ment.
But what is the meaning of the
statement? BY the method of cir
cumlocution, we may ascertain what
the courts have declared to be con-
stitutional rights. Judge Artman
then quotes a number Of decisions.
and concludes: "The %concensus Of
all these statements is that the pur-
suit of lawful business is more than
a mere right; it Is property which
cannot be taken from one without
due process of the law" Hence,
when the courts declare that the sa-
loon is not a constitutional right, that
is merely another way Of saying that
the saloon is an unlawful institution;
that it is not lawful at common law.
And it means also that a business
that may be arbitrarily and wholly
prohibited is both unconstitutional
and unlawful at common law, and,
as the saloon may be absolutely pro-
hibited arbitrarily it Is both uncon-
stitutional and unlawful at common
law. This is the full meaning of the
statement that no n possesses a
constitutional right to keep a saloon.
What are inalienable rights? The
Standard Dictionary says: @Inalien-
able" means mot transferable: that
cannot be rightfully, properly or
legally sold, conveyed or taken away"
The courts say: "No one possesses
an in~alienable right to keep a saloon
for the sale of intoxicating liquor"
Why? The Declaration of %Independ-
ence says: "All men are created
equal; they are endowed by Almighty
God with certain %inalienable rights,
among which are life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness" The United
States Supreme Court has said that,
among these i~nalienable rights is the
right. Of men to pursue any lawful
business. Justice Bradley of that
court said: 81 hold that the liberty
of pursuit, the right to follow any Of
the ordinary callings of life, is one Of
the privileges of a citizen Of the
United States, of which he cannot be
deprived without invading his right
to liberty within the meaning Of the
Constitution"
The saloon is not an inaiienable
right, therefore, it is not a lawful
trade or calling; it Is not one of the
civil or equal rights of men. A bust
ness which can be prohibited entirely
cannot be an inalienable right. When
the courts deny that the saloon is an
inalienable right, they in effect, de.
clare that it is not conducive to the
hapDiness of mankind: thew affirm
that it is dangerous to and destructive
of the'happiness of citizens; and, be-
Ing so, the saloon is unquestionably
unlawful at common law.
There is no inherent right in a citi-
| zen to thus sell intoxicating liquor.
The United States Supreme Court
has used this expression no less than
twelve different times, and almost
every State Supreme Court of the
Union has declared that no person
has an inherent right to keep a
saloon. The cases in which such
declarations have been made are so
numerous that it would be a waste of
time, Eyes and digests to collect and
cite all of them, and to do so would
serve 10 useful purpose. The bake
shop and the shoe store are both law
full callings, therefore they are both
Inherent rights. The saloon is always
and everywhere attended with injury
to the safety, health, peace, good Or
der and morals of the community and
Is, for that reason, unlawful, and con-
sequently has no inherent right to
exist.