Grand Forks daily herald., 1914-10-22
DRY MINNESOTA.

DRY MINNESOTA.
Under the recent decision Of the
federal supreme court. which. SO far
a. we know. closes the subject. a very
large part of northern Minnesota Is
legally "dry" territory. The court has
sustained the contention Of the federal
authorities that the Indian treaties
eeding the territory involved, includ-
ing the permanent prohibition Of the
sale OF liquor in the territory. are
valid, and are now Of binding effect.
The governments contentious are sus.
tained on every material issue. and
the next step will be awaited with in
terest.
A number Of curious incongruities
have been apparent in connection
with this subject ever since the effort
began to close the saloons in certain
parts Of this territory. AS we under
stand 1t. the Indian treaties, when
they dealt with the subject of intoxi-
eants, prohibited absolutely and for
all time the sale Of liquor in the terri
tory ceded. There were no halfway
measures about 1t. Nothing was left
70 the discretion of any agent. officer
or commission. When the thing was
prohibited 1t was prohibited absolute
ly. and that settled it. The reason for
the inclusion Of such . provision Is
easy to understand. The Indian was
peculiarly susceptible to the baneful
influence Of strong drink. and it was
desired to keep the dangerous stuff as
far out Of his reach as possible.
These treaties are valid. or they are
invalid. If they are invalid. or IL the
special provisions with reference to
intoxicants do not apply, the terri
tory which was obtained from the In
dams is in exactly the same condition
as other territory, and is subject in all
respects to the ordinary police regula:
lions of the states wherein 1t lies. un-
less congress has made some special
legislation concerning it. which. in
this case, congress has not done. II
the treaties are invalid. therefore, the
ceded territory in northern Minnesota
is subject to the ordinary license regu-
lations Of the state, and the federal
authorities have no police jurisdiction
over 1t. An Indian agent or deputy
marshal, or any other federal officer
would have no more right to enter
that territory and order the closing Of
iv% <hor hA 70
form the same act in North Dakota,
Louisiana or New York city.
The supreme court, however, says
that the treaties are valid, and their
prohibitions in full working order.
That being the case. the operation of
saloon in any part Of that territory
il a violation of the laws Of the Uni
ted States, and a defiance Of its SOL
smn treaty obligations. No federal
official, no matter what his station or
title, has q right to countenance or
eonnive at any act of the sort, no mat
ter where or by whom committed. 1t
ID not for the official to say how liq-
uor shall be sold. by whom or to
whom. or that it may be sold If the
places Of sale are conducted in a de-
cent and orderly manner.
Yet II is just this thing that the In
aian bureau started out to do. The
bureau started with the assumption
that the indian treaties were in all
respects valid. That furnished ba-
eds for action, and the correctness OF
that opinion has finally been estab-
H1hed By the highest court. But,
starting with that assumption. the
agents and employees Of the bureau
clothed themselves with a discretion
ary power which was never conferred
In any treaty or other legislative act,
; snd proceeded to play the part Of au-
tocrats ordering the summary closing
ok saloons in one place, and permitting
saloons to run in other places equally
within the scope Of the treaties and
tAe authority of the law. They said,
IN effect: '"fhe supreme law govern.
fng this territory is thus and so. Here
We will compel its enforcement to the
istter. There we will suspend It's op.
Grafton during our good pleasure"
Such . course OF procedure is worse
than an absurdity. It Is form Of bu.
fsaucratic government intolerable Il
Q free people. The Herald 10 not ar.
ouing at all in favor Of the sale oi
4 nquor In the csded territory. It be.
tieves that the communities affected
would be Infinitely better of were tn.
I sale Of liquor permanently banishet
from them. But 1t does maintain. al
II has done in the past, that 1t is no
for any ofncial to enforce or suspend
!: laws at will.
ANTI.l(ONOPOLY AMENDMENT.
Some people are agitating for al
q amendment to the constitution Of tn,
q United States comforting on congress
4 the authority to prevent and suppress
4 monopoly by appropriate legislation.
Inasmuch as congress already hal
that authority under the constitution
and exercises 1t according to its judg
i msnt whenever It sees At, the need TO
4 q constitutional amendment 10 no
4 etaar.
The constitution gives congress th,
elti6a aVo fi4ht to roRplAtA intArstat,