The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1914-11-18

- - - ~ - -
". All statutes iafiicting penalties
do not relate TO the use OF property
as this one does. On the contrary, I
very few Of them do. The statute IT
self and the circumstances are all
exceptional, calling for the appiica-
ton Of the extraordinary and except
ional remedies, provided for them
The principle involved is thus
stated in 20 eye. page 903:
.The general rule is that an injunc
ton will not be granted to stay GRIM
inal or quasi-criminal proceedings,
whether the prosecution be for the
violation Of the common law or the
infraction Of statutes or municipal
ordinances. But where the statute or
ordinance under which. the complaint
is prosecuted may result in irrepar-
able injury to his property rights, an
Injunction will be granted to restrain
the commencement or continuance OF
criminal proceedings under such
statute or ordinance. Nevertheless
where no property rights are inyoly-
ed. the proceeding constitutes mere
trespass on the person and the In
junction will not be granted
In the case Of State v. Ehrlick; s.
W. Va, page 700, the supreme court
OF appeals quotes with approval from
an Illinois case as. follows:
at is elementary law that the sub
ject matter OF the Jurisdiction OF the
court of ichancery is civil properly.
fThe court is conversant only with
questions of property and the main
tenance OF civil rights. Injury to
property whether actual or prcspec-
tive. is the foundation on which the
jurisdiction rests. The court has no
jurisdiction in matters merely Grim
inal or merely immoral, which do not
affect any right to property. ( ~.
In the Ehrlick case. just cited, eff
fort was made to enjoin Ehrlick and
others from operating a Turf Ex-
change" The Injunction was refused,
the court saying, In point 5 Of the,
syllabus:
If a charge is OF criminal ma
ture, orsan offense against the public,
and does not touch the enjoyment OF
property, or health. It Is not within
the Jurisdiction Of a court OF equity
It will be noted that in that case
public officials were the moving par,
ties seeking the aid of q court OF
equity to repress criminal acts, while
In the Coal & Coke Railway case pub
lie officials were the parties against
whom an Injunction was desired, yet
the same principle was applied in
both cases, namely, that jurisdiction
Of equity depends upon property
rights.
1t follows, therefore, that If the
plaintiffs can maintain the present
suit and obtain the injunction they
desire, two concurring conditions
must be made to apepar. First, that
the prohibition statute is unconsti-
tutional in the particulars in which
plaintiffs assail it; and second, that
the enforcement by the defendant
officials OF the said provisions of the
statute the plaintiffs property rights
are violated and jeopardized. II, up
on the allegations OF the bill, either
Of these two conditions appear not to
exist, equity will not take jurisdic-
ton, and a negative ruling by the
court as to either OF said two prop
ositions renders ruling as to the
other unnecessary.
/ In my opinion no property rights
Of the plaintiffs are jeopardized nor
even involved. Neither the selling Of
intoxicating LIQUORS, nor the advertis-
ing Of the same nor the soliciting Of
orders, is property right There
is no innate right in any citizen of the
state or nation to sell Intoxicating
liquors, because no man has the
right per Sc to do that which is harm-
full to his fellow men,
In Crowley ". Christensen, 1877 U.
S., Sc, the supreme court of the Uni
ted States said:
1.-THE statistics of every state show
q greater amount of crime and misery
attributable to the use Of ardent spir-
It's obtained at these retail liquor
saloons than to any other source.
The sale Of such liquors
has therefore been, at all times, by
the courts of every, stats, considered
as the proper subject of legitimate
regulation. 50 The police power
of the state is fully competent to reg
ulate the business-to mitigate its
evils or to suppress it entirely. There
is no inherent right in a citizen to
thus sell Intoxicating liquors by re-
tail. 1t is not privilege OF a cit
izen of the state or Of the United
States. As 1t is business attended
with danger to the community, It
may, as already said, be entirely pro-
hibited, or be permitted under such
conditions as will limit to the utmost
its evils. The manner and extent of