Lincoln County times. (Jerome, Idaho) 1911-1919, 1915-09-16

rpuOLDs PROHIBITION LAW.
Idaho Supreme Court Declares as
Constitutional Every Feature
of the Idaho Prohibition
Law.

gent in the United States, operative
now in prohibition counties and
which will apply 10 this state as a.
whole on and after Jan. i, 1916, Is
constitutional in every form. This Is
the sweeping ruling OF the supreme
court OF this state in decision
handed down last Saturday. Ii Is
held TO be not in contravention OF
Sec OF the l4th amendment TO the
federal constitution, its title is not |
defective. each and every part OF II
comes within the subject OF general |
legislation. it does not prohibit sur.
geons, physicians, dentists or hospit-
ais from using pure alcohol for me
dicinal purposes as contended and
prohibition districts do not now have
TO vote on it's adoption, says the
court.
The decision is on the application
of Edward Crane of Latah county to
secure a writ OF habeas corpus for
his release from Jail there on the
charge OF having liquor in his po'
session, which the law prohibits. The
writ is quashed and Crane remanded
TO the custody OF the sherin. He
failed to give bail after his arrest
and was turned over to that official
II was afterwards that he fined the
petition for a writ OF habeas corpus
An appeal was taken TO make a test
case on the constitutionality of the
law
1T has been argued that this law
prohibits the use of alcohol by ply
sicians and surgeons In the practice
OF their professions; that 1t is un-
necessarily stringent and is. there
fore. not a proper police regulation.
The act expressly provides for the
purchase and possession Of pure al
cohol to be used for scientific pur-
poses. While 1t Is not contended In
this case that petitioner had posses
sion OF the liquor for scientific pur-
poses. and while the liquor was not
alcohol, but whiskey. so that this
question may properly have no bear
ing upon the decision OF this case
however. In order TO set the minds
of the citizens OF the state forever at
rest upon this point we will say that
the practice of medicine, surgery
dentistry and dental surgery are SCI
ences, and that pure alcohol may be
lawfully procured under the terms OF
this act In the manner provided
therein for use in the practice OF
these professions. or by any person
citizens or hospital for any scientiic
or medicinal purpose"
The conclusions of the court upon
some of the prominent points In the
law can be briefly summed up In the
following excerps from the opinion
1--WE have reached the conclusion
that this act is not In contraventiof
of section / of the 14th amendment
to the constitution of the United
States, nor of section 13, article
of the constitution OF Idaho; that 1
was passed by the legislature with
view to the protection OF the pubn
health, the public morals and tn
public safety; that 1t has real ant
substantial relation to those object
and that II is. therefore. a reasonabl
exercise of the police power of tn
state.
"The act under consideratio
treats of but one general subject
namely, to limit the use of intoxicat
ing liquors. There is nothing con
tanned in the act that is german t
the general subject or purpose eN
pressed In the title.
"Eeach and every part of the at
in question comes within the SUI
iect matter of legislation. and
necessary as ends and means to tn
attainment of the object-to prote'
the health, morals and promote tn
general welfare of the citizens
the state by the suppression of tn
unrestricted use of intoxicating
quors.
'In order to set the minds of ci
liens of the state forever at re
upon this point (the contention Il
law prohibits the use of alcohol
physicians and surgeons In the pra
tice of their professions) we Will 81
that the practice of surgery, DENTS
ry and dental surgery are scienc
and that pure alcohol may be lawf'
" procured under the terms OF I'll
act in the manner provided there
for use.
at has also been argued that Il
act cannot become effective In loo
option districts other than those cl
ated since It's adoption. we ma
reached the conclusion to the &C
trary. We have reached
conclusion that It is unnecessary
submit the question of the adopt
or rejection of the provisions OF {
law to the electors of prohibit
districts created prior to Its adj