Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1909-01-13

and place themselves on record for or
against the movement, and all la a
quiet, subdued, earnest manner.
A COMMUNICATIONS.
In the face of the argument now be-
ing advanced by the supporters Of the
saloon TO the effect that prohibition in
Utah would be unconstitutional. a
friend Of temperance handed In the fol-
lowing communication 10 the News"
this morning:
There is no question but the state
has right to prohibit the sale or man
ufacture Of Intoxicating liquors, just as
Il has a right % restrict or regulate
this traffic. IL has been held repeatedly
that these matters properly come with
in the police powers OF the state i'm the
line Of suppressing vice and promoting
morality
The supreme court of Vermont has
declared CLincoln VI. Smith, % VI. 32S)
that III Il De once granted that the
use OF intoxicating liquors as drink is
worse than useless, and intemperance
legitimate consequence OF such use.
and that Incompetence Is an evil. i'm
furious TO health and sound morals and
productive Of pauperism and crime,
ID seems TO us that a law designed
10 prevent such consequences must
clearly fan within the class of laws
denominated police regulations (see
also 81 Me. 1861
IT Is a bold assertion" declares the
New York court Met 80. Of lex. vs.
Barrie. "a ~ Y. $50 "at this day that
there Is anything Ia the state or fed
eral constitutions conflicting with or
setting bounds upon the legislative dis
erection or action in directing when,
where and how a trade shall be COM
Quoted I'm articles Intimately connected
whit the public molnls. or public safety
or public prosperity or indeed 10 pro-
hibt and suppress such traffic alto
gether. " deemed essential 90 effect
those great ends of good government
The supreme court OF Massachusetts
Oh. Co. vs.. Mass. 81 Il. s.. 80 has held
that when public safety or public NOR
ais require the discontlnuance OF any
manufacture or traffic, the hand OF
The legislature cannot be stayed from
providing for its dlscontnuance by any
incidental Inconvenience which indl-
yiduals or corporations may suffer All
rights are held subject 90 the police
power Of the state
The supreme court OF Illinois holds
that restraints uron lhe traffic la
spirltuous liquors are not Ike such as
restrict the ordinary Yocatious OF life
which advance human happiness, or
trade aud commerce that produce nol-
Their immortality suffering nor want '
And the court expressly declares COS
400. $40 that the manufacture and salo
~ intoxicanis properly comes within
the regulation Of the police power OF
thc state ana that restrictions which
could not Doe placed COnstitutiouallv
upon other pursuits may rightfully be
Imposed upon any branch ~ the liquor
traffic.
Lawmakers of this state should not
be mlsled by the claims set up by the
hrcwel1 inirWFlh ibbl prohibition
law would conflict with the Constitu-
ZION. operate as a restraint 81 trade or
interfere with vested rights The lead
ing eXpohents of constitutional law in
the country where the question has
been taker 20 tncm for adjudication
have held ihai state leslsiafures have
every riGai aud poWef lo enact laWs 90
restrict regulate COZ prohibit tha eale
of making Of Intoxicating liquors