The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1909-07-04
PARADOX|CAL To
ATTACK COURTS
Writer Points Out Bangor OF
Recent Attitudes
LOCKER CLUB DECISION
Further Authorities Cited To Show
That Other Supreme Courts
Have Already Passed on
the Question.
, the Editor of The Age-Herald:

themselves on being law-abiding citizens,
and who are wont to express themselves
as IL they were holier than the rest of
the community, attack the motive or
the wisdom of the court when it under
takes to firmly state that the 1egisla-
ture has overstepped constitutional
bounds. Can there be higher duty than
respect for the Judiciary of the state?
One of the judges of the supreme court
| of Alabama has recently said, In an
opinion:
1.-The drastic prohibition laws are in
tended for the moral benefit and eleva-
ton of mankind, but their moral pur-
pose or benehcent result must not be
considered to save them when they in
wade the sanctity of the constitutional
| rights of our citizens. Reforms come
and go-often doing good-but OCCASION
ally they merely disturb and interfere
with the serenity of conservatism and
| quietude under existing conditions But
! constitutions should ever remain as bar
riers to legislative or judicial interfer
ence with the inalienable right of en-
! joyment of life, liberty and the pursuit
! of happiness"
| The opinion of Judge Sayre In the
Edge case is sound. and not subject
to the criticism of inconsistency. The
supreme court of Alabama years ago, in
the case of ex parte Florence, rs Ala
bama. 419, said: THAT liquors are con-
sidered property, the subject of owner
ship, and entitled to protection; though.
like other property, held subject to the
condition that it shall not be so used
10 ini,, riO Of nj
or the interest of the community"
It is urged that because the state may
prohibit the manufacture of liquors that
this can only be done because liquors are
not property, and that the upholding of
the power of the state to prohibit the
] manufacture is inconsistent with the
holding that liquors are property. There
| are a great many things that are con-
sidered property that the Legislature can
regulate the use of when that use might
injure another person in his rights or
the community The state may prohibit
a merchant from selling out his stock
| in bulk without giving his creditors rea-'
| sonable notice. This power has recently
been upheld by the supreme court of
the United States. No one would contend
| that the stock of goods was not prop
erty, but the legislature has the power to
say that this property shall not be used
|sto defraud or to injure others and a
| sale in bulk has been and may be
means of perpetrating a fraud on others
and this may be lawfully prevented.
/ Liquor is manufactured usually for sale
| and it Is matter of common knowledge
that with the revenue license required
by the government and the supervision
exacted by the United States government
| liquor ican only economically and prac-
tically be manufactured for sale and not
for ones own consumption.
| The supreme court of Texas in Elk
/ Parte Brown, 80 Texas criminal reports,
| 295 passing on an almost similar statute,
uses the following language:
Intoxicating liquors are regarded as
property, both in the state and nation.
and 1t is not necessary to refer to acts
| of the legislature, or decisions of the
courts in which intoxicating liquors are
| so regarded. we entirely concur
in the principles enumerated In the fore
going opinion Estate VS.. Gilman, 80 w.
Va, 146) and their application to the
question in this case is obvious; and
| we accordingly hold, that the attempt of
! the legislature to make the keeping of
| liquor by one citizen for another, In local
option territory, whether in house, tent
| or anywhere else, a crime to
be without authority of law as violative
of the citizens fundamental right to use
his own propsrty as he pleases, not injur-
| ing another person; and that 1t is not
competent for the Legislature under its
power of police regulation to impair the
legal ownership and holding of ones
property either by himself or by another
person.
But not alone is this right Of the in
| dividual protected by the laws OF the
| state, as announced by the supreme court,
but they are SO protected by the federal
| constitution, that the state could not by
| constitutional amendment interfere with
| them. AS said by the supreme court of
| West Virginia in the case Of the state of
| West Virginia VS.. Gilman, L. r. A. SAT
| in substance that this statute Is an
abridgement of the privileges and immuni-
ties of the citizen as guaranteed by the
constitution Of the United States, and fur
Their that by interstate commerce clause
of the constitution of the United States
citizen of the state of Alabama may
| state liquor and he may use such liquor
| so ordered for his own usetand the state
has no power by statutory law or con-
stitutional enactment to prohibit such
use of same.
The supreme court of Alabama is not
the only court that has saved the people
against themselves and their own folly.
We recall how. some years ago, the SUI
| preme court of the omitted States. the
greatest judicial tribunal in the world,
| was criticised by those partisans who
| did not agree with the result in the in
come tax case. II there be one greater
hope than. another for the perpetuity Of
our institutions 1t is in the courag and
wisdom of the Judiciary in the stand
against the impulsive, the demogogic or
the fanatical. and upf1olding the consti-
tuition against transient attacks or
| whims. SAMUEL B. STERN
Birmingham July 3, 1909.
|
Dr.. Hiden In Richmond.
| No H. n