The Montgomery advertiser. [volume] (Montgomery, Ala.) 1885-1982, 1909-07-04

forbidding any person, whatever his
mission in entering the place, from
having therein the condemned liquors.
1t penalties purchaser of the pro-
hibited liquors to whom a delivery
thereof, in the described place. is
made. 1t operates to restrain one
from accepting a delivery Of such
liquors therein. 1t, II observed. would
take from the traffic broadly con-
demned, In this case one of the par
ties, viz, the buyer or receiptor, neces-
sary to effect the elimination of the
evil thus stated by Mr.. Black at sec. 80:
'"The evil to be avoided is the COM
munication from one to another of an
article which may be injurious to the
recipient, or which, by-its general use,
may demoralize or harm the whole
community. 1t is not attempted to
restrain a mans private indulgence in
drink, but that is because law deals
not with the isolated individual, but
with man in their realtion to each
other" The ordinance says to all per-
sons: you shall not have in the place
described any spirituous. etc. liquors
Its purview comprehends those on
both sides of the counter, the deliver
er and the receiptor, and prohibits one
as well as the other from the act de-
scribed. In short 1t attempts to
forestall evasions of the major laws
by restraining all VINO may contribute
to that evasion.
1t is no argument against the
validity Of this phase of the ordinance
that well-intentioned individual
entering such a place as the Ordinance
defines, with spirituous, etc, -liquors
on his eerson at the time would violate
the ordinance by SO doing. II the
municipality or the State itself may
forbid. as In right each may do, the
storage or deposit or keeping of
liquors in the specified places, 1t cam
not be that a person of the class
above described would be free from
the effect of the states prohibiting
power. The line between the inno-
cent visitor or patron, who also has on
his person some of the prohibited
liquor, and the individual not SO in
nocent. could not be drawn in prac-
tical operation; and, hence as in many
Gases, the mere right Of Innocence
must yield to the public right to re-
strain the vicious who might seek to
evade the law by the same abstract
conduct as that pursued by the inno-
cent. The law must operate by gem
eral classes ani because the innocent
may be disturbed In their courses or
conduct by rule intended for applt-
cation TO the wrong-bent has never,
/ think. been thought sufficient to deny
the proper authority the right to re-
strain along general and couprehen-
sive lines. The maxim Salus populi
suprena lex is founded on the implied
consent of the individual to yield of
his rights In the interests and in fur
therance OF the general welfare. The
extreme case urged In argument
against this phase OF the ordinance
must, IL It ever occurs. go under the
ordinance as q contribution within the
maxim quoted. That phase may cover
conditions not innocent, as In tho
hypothesized case. and. therefore the
extreme case should not avail to deny
the state or the municipality the
right to reach those not so innocent
though pursuing the course of the In
nocent 1t would be easy for the law
abiding to avoid carrying liquor into q
place subject to the laws suspicion.
ed as a convenient occasion and place
for evasion.
= But. If 1t be granted (for the
argument) that the provision OF
the ordinance expressed in the phrass