The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1918-11-02

q lie committee appointed 10 lnNeSu-
gate It. by Hon. Charles E. Searls, of
Thompson, president Of the Connec-
ticut State Bay Association, This
committee comprised Judge Silas A.
Robinson, Middletown; Judge Milton
A. Shumway, Killingly; Judge Joseph
P. futile, Hartford; Seymour Z.
Loon1is, New Haven; Christopher L.
Avery, New London. The report, In
part, reads:
We think it Is especially the duty
of lawyers to study the legal aspects
of this proposed amendment, its char
acter, and its effect, If adopted, upon
the system of our republican FORM Oh
government, also the method OF us
submission by Congress, and the ian
guage wherein concurrent power Is
given to the federal and state gov
ernments.
Sumptuary laws are usually often
sive and injudicious. They are an IN
reference with what most people
deem reasonable natural rights. In
dulgences may sometimes be harmful
to the individual but the individual
insists that he shall be left to decide
that question for himself and cannot
consent that statues Of constitutions
shall tell him what he shall eat or
what he shall drink or wherewithal
he shall be clothed. Such legislative
restrictions are deemed by many to
be impairment, and an undue inter
ference with the private and personal
rights of the citizen, so much so that
whole communities and states are bit
70 nj
them,
But however, Objectionable mere
legislative statutes may be, the sit"
uation can be easily remedied when q
different view is taken by the people.
If, however, such prohibition has be-
come esta blished In the Constitution
of the United States, as Is proposed
by this amendment, it becomes a per-
manent curtailment of previous
rights to which we will have to sub
nit for all time or until we can pro-
cure it to be taken out of the consti-
tuition through the same tedious and
expensive methods by which the
amendment itself was brought into
being.
Your committee regard the propo-
sition to put into the Constitution of
the United. States a prohibition
against the manufacture, sale and
transportation of liquors as unwise
and unsafe, and as unstatesmanlike
in every phase of 1t. We think 1t a
dangerous precedent; we look upon
it as the door to every kind of re-
strictions having to do with those
matters which, If limited at all, should
be limited by local laws. To pursue
tho course OF adopting such an
amendment is to introduce irksome,
irritating restrictions. 1t is to intro
duce too much paternalism into the
system of general government, and
also is a pronounced step in centraliz
alton of power in the general gov
eminent which Capitalization we have
always insisted upon must be guarded
against as something destructive o.
local civil rights as we view them.
Unenforceable in Some States.
A provision of this sort placed II
the constitution would be a perma.
nent federal liquor law applicable tc
every state in tho Union, even if some
OF the states and the people thereof
were opposed to 1t, and for this rea.
son would, we think, be unenforcea.
BILE in such unsympathetic local.
ties.
Those who are advocating thi!
amendment forget that one of tn.
theories upon which this government
was founded Is that personal ibert,
should be preserved as far as posi-
Bile, and that "absolutism in ever,
form was intended to be .extrudeC
from government" as DR.. Davit
Jayne Hill says in his Crisis in Con
stitutionalism."
We must not lose sight Of the pur.
pose of our Constitutional govern
ment; we must not forget that it,
basic idea is that life, liberty anC
property require protection agains
absolutism, and arbitrary dictation
especially when we have before u
the spectacle of people forming
political party who would make tn,
Constitution itself an instrument o
arbitrariness, and if they can nov
make this prohibition a constitution
al provision, it is difficult to see wha
the end will be along these and othe
lines.
If they can successfully strike tn
blow at an underlying principle o
the Constitution, why not other blow
and so on, indefinitely, until at las
instead Of having a Constitutions
government, as originally designe
and more than ever now so nue.
needed, we shall have constitutions
paternalism and Observation-Disclosures
ism operating under guise of a Con
stitution and controlling our lives an
occupations in almost endless detail
Certain people and certain states hay
fng the power to legislate agains
traffic in liquors, and not statistic
with their own possession of the pow
eT to control the traffic within thel
own borders, now seek to control
outside Of their borders and ask tha
the Constitution of the United State
be so amended as to prohibit the trat
fic in every other state, whether TIL
people approve of it or not. Tht
seems to your committee an invasio
of personal and civil rights, and
declaration that our state should nc
even in time of peace be allowed t
manage and direct its own domesti
Authorizations that concern only til
welfare. of its cwn inhabitants.
In this move to amend the Cor
stitution of the United States YOU
Ncom 7tt+%e sees a bold and selfis
reacEThg for political power and cor
troll.
Pander to Prohibition
1t is a matter of common know
edge that many Of the advocates
this measure in the different state
have been for years building up the
political fences by endeavoring I
pander to the prohibition vote witt
out any regard to It's effect upon OF