The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-10-01
Why I Oppose The Proposed
 Constitutional Amendment


 law. There could be nothing but evil result from the continued, conscious violation of the supreme law of the land even though the law-breaker be immune from punishment. The State can not afford to place itself in the attitude of winking at crime. and crime it certainly will be. It Is further urged In defense of this provision of the amendment that even though 1t does deprive a citizen of a natural right and a cherished personal liberty. still the personal liberty of the citizen Is always subject to the control of the State to the end that the exercise of the right shall not damage his neighbor. To my mind, there Is no room for the application of this we'll recognized principle. By what pro- cess of reasoning can it be deduced that the manufacture of small quantities of wine in ones one private kitchen. for his own private use. will interfere With, or damage, any citizen of the community? I am informed that the courts have uniformly held that the keeping of liquors in his possession by a person, whether for himself or another, unless he does So for the Illegal sale thereof, or for some other improper purpose, can not injure or affect the health, morals or safety of
 
 such keeping in possession is not legitimate exercise of the police power, but Is an abridgement of the privileges and immunities of thc citizen, without any legal Justification, and, therefore, void. It is easy to understand why this principle would apply after the wine had been manufactured if the owner sought to sell it. Numerous in- stances might be cited where Legisla- ture has regulated or restricted citi- zens in the enjoyment of natural rights, but Is does not appear to me to be competent for the Legislature to wholly deprive citizens of such rights when their exercise is not necessarily ac- companied with damage or hurt to the public.
 The second section of the proposed amendment Is dangerously objection able because 1t invests the Legislature with the power to deny a citizen the right to keep In his home, for any pur- pose. no matter how innocent, the smallest quantity of whiskey or wine. We are here again told by the advo- cates of the amendment that we need feel no alarm; that the Legislature will never pass law denying us this right. If not. why insist upon giving this power? Why not have this section read so as to allow the Legislature to designate places where liquors may not be stored for unlawful purposes or for sale? Why invest the Legislature with a power so easily made oppressive? Some say thae the amendment will not in fact confer any new power on the Legislature in this respect: that they already have plenary powers. This I can not believe as it would be antago- nistic to the basic principles of our gov ! ernment. and especially so long as in- | toxicating liquors are considered prop | erty. Such a theory runs counter to | the first principles of free government as these principles are declared in our declaration of rights. Our Bill of | Rights says that the sole object and | only legitimate end of government is | to protect the citizen in the enjoyment | of life, liberty and property and when | government assumes other functions 1t | Is usurpation and oppression. To my | mind this declaration of the objects | and ends of our government would rem der nugatory and void any legislative | enactment making 1t unlawful to keep liquors in a private home for private | use. unless such act be validated by | the adoption of the proposed amend ment.
 Unquestionably. the Legislature hasI the power as the Constitution now stands. to prohibit the keeping of liquors in a private dwelling If they
  ing the home into a s1loon This Is | necessarily incident to the police pow CT under which the traffic in liquors is | regulated. With the Legislature al- | ready vested with the dndisputed pow CT to prevent citizen from storing | whiskey in his home for sale, or for other unlawful purpose. why add to this already sufficient power the un- limited power to prevent his keeping 1t there for any purpose?
 These considerations do not appear to me to be by any means fanciful. but on the other hand to be eminently real, especially when we consider the fact thae the Legislature has very recently passed laws authorizing the search of private dwellings, and securing to the complainant, be he white or black, high or low, friend or foe. the right to ac- company the officer whether the officer Is willing or not. This law Is conced- edly radical and unwise. yet. 1t was passed in the face of Constitution which many able lawyers believe 1t vio- lates; In fact the courts have already | declared 1t unconstitutional. Further. | Judge Weakley boasts of having drawn this Fuller bill himself after much de- liberation. With this as a beginning, and which all limitations and restric- tions removed from the Legislature, and with an element declaring it wrong | of itself to have on hand or to use in- toxicants. have we pot just cause to apprehend something worse? A con- temptation of these extremes is not very reassuring to us when we are told that this is purely moral ques- tion. We may boast of our confidence in the wisdom and conservatism of the Legislature. but who would want to eliminate from the Constitution his guarantee of religious liberty? We are unwilling to trust them with the right to deny us a trial by jury, or the right to bear arms in our own defense