Arizona republican., 1910-08-08

land
 First From South Carolina | Liquor in its nature is dangerous to
 the morals, good order, health and
 safety of the people, and is not to be placed upon the same footing with
 the ordinary commodities of life. such
 as corn. wheat. cotton. etc."-State
 vs. Aiken, 25 L. R. A. 345. Second. From the Illinois State l Court: We presume no one would have the hardihood to contend that
 the retail sale of intoxicating drinks demoraliZe the community, to foster vice, produce crime and beggary, want and misery" vs. Chicago, 6S III. 444.
 Third. From the Indiana State Court: The evils which attend and inhere in the business of handling and selling intoxicating liquors are universally recognized. and the danger therefrom to the peace and good or der of the community everywhere necessitates the exercise of the police power. vs. City, so N. E. 632.
 Fourth From the Iowa State Court: An enumeration of all the evils arising from the use of intoXi- eating liquors need not be attempted. They are numerous and affect the people collectively and individually. IlirNss, poverty, p@uperism, crime. in sanity, disease and the destruction of human llfo fellow indulgence in the habit of using Intoxicating drinks.
 Millions If or feliJw corintryneI are addicted tG th;s Latit, and of these millions ht,.umc Ciulkards. Hones are bIokCn up aud domestic peace is
 q. sIr"y,d oy drunkenness. The prs nns, a:tusa uses and Institutions tor tIc care of orphans. insanity and af
 fliction are largely filled by this vice
 Thinking men of this day largely concur in the opinion that the influence of the saloon and the idleness and vice of the multitude of it's clientele constitute the peril of American institutions. We think none will deny that nothing but evil follows from this rce."-Pearson vs. International Distillery, 72 Ind. 34S. See also Santo vs. State, Iowa 165; 5 Am. Dec. 491.
 Space will forbid the quotation of d ions of the courts from every state in our nation. We have not quoted from the court decisions of the old prohibition states for the simple req son that the whisky men might say they were biased by prohibition senti- ment But, as fair and clear as these decisions are. and give min the unlm- passioned language of the court, they are none the less crushing and de- structive against the claimants in de- fense of the whisky traffic. But as destructive as these may be consid- cred, they are not to be compared to the sweeping indictment against the traffic uttered by the United States supreme court in its decision Tn the case of Crowley vs. Christensen. lS U. S.. S5. II Sup. Court Rep. l3: By the general concurrence of opinion or every civilized and Christian commu- nifty, there are few sources of crime and misery to society equal to the dram shop. where intoxicating liquors in small quantities, to be drunk at the time. are indiscriminately sold to all parties applying. The statistics Of every state show a greater amount of crime and misery attributable to the use of ardent spirits obtained at these retail hquor saloons than to any other source. - There IS no inherent right in a citizen to sell intoxicating liquors by retail It IS not privilege of a citizen of the state or of a citizen of the United States.
 Ii is said that the liquor dealers complain bitterly of this language or the supreme court But the words are the courts unimpassioned opin- ion of their business. It is the most crushing blow ever given to the liquor traffic by any judicial tribunal. We are not surprised that men so unfor- tunate as to be engaged in business so low in the eyes of the United States court should feel hurt. Has if ever occurred to the liquor men to ask carefully what the courts meant in saving: There is no inherent right in citizen to sell intoxicating liouors by retail It is not privilege of a citizen of the state or of the United States? If he would consider seriously twice, he would certainly begin to see the answer in the dutles of his own citizenship. Where IS It written. or even implied. that man has by virtue of his citizenship the ripht to run a business which natu- rally tends to crime? Where, men. where? Will some one answer Una. his license from the government grants to him the rights of his busi- ness? True. But does it do it upon the basis of his citizenship? The time was when nearly every whisky