Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-02-04
Supreme Court Decisions
Against Liquor Traffic

1t is urged by some opponents of
prohibition that the measure is UNI
constitutional and that it is supported
chiefly by extremists.
The Supreme Court Of the United
States may probably be considered the
best authority on the constitutionality
of any law. and also to be singularly
free from the radical extreme or hys-
terital type of mind since the Judges
on the Supreme bench are chosen
from the more mature, scholarly and
conservative jurists. To trace the his
tory of prohibition in the highest judi
cial body of our Government is, there
fore, both interesting and informa-
tive.
Eighty years ago the liquor inter
eSts were opposing the restrictions
and regulations which were imposed
upon them as an invasion Of their per
sonal liberty. In the decision, written
by the then Chief Justice fancy, the
court unanimously upheld the right of
the state 10 impose restrictions and
license, declaring:
IF any State deems the retail and
internal traffic in ardent spirits in
furious to its citizens and calculated
to produce idleness, vice and debauch-
cry. ] see nothing in the Constitution
Of the United States 10 prevent it from
regulating and restraining the traffic
or from prohibiting it altogether if it
thinks proper.
u * * X
Again. in another decision
m acknowledged police power of
a state extends often 10 the destruc-
ton of property. A nuisance may be
abated. Everything prejudiciaI to the
health or morals of u city may be re
moved. ="
Again
1T is not necessary for the sake Of
uStifying the State legislation now
under consideration to array the APP
palling statistics of misery, pauper
ism and crime which have their origin
in the use or abuse Of ardent spirits.
IL loss Of revenue should
accrue to the United States from q
diminished consumption of ardent spir-
it's, she will be the gamer a thousand
fold in the health, wealth and happi-
ness of the people,"
Again, in Beer Co VS.. Massachu-
sets t87 Z. s., 32). the Supreme Court
held.
"If the public safety or the public
morals require the discontinuance of
any manufacture or traffic, the hand
of the Legislature cannot be. stayed
by any incidental inconvenience which
individuals on corporations may
suffer
In 1890, - little more than third
of "A century ago, a case came up to
the Supreme Court from Gan Fran
cisco which has been held by some
legal authorities to be the most funda-
me ntal of all liquor cases. 1t is the
case of Christiane0n W.. Crowley 137
Il. s. So. Christensen contended
that he had constitutional or in
herent right to sell liquor. which was
at that time a recognized commodity
of general commerce. The report was
unanimous. and was written by Mr..
Justice Stephen j. Field, whore the
drys considered distinctly unfriendly
to prohibition. These excerpts are
significant;
1T is urged that what a man may
drink. equally with what he shall eat.
is not, properly, a matter for legisla-
ton. BY the general con-
currence of opinion of every civilized
and Christian community there are
few sources of crime and misery equal
to the dram shop. There is no
inherent right in "a citizen to sell in
toxicating liquors at retail. 1t is not
privilege of q citizen of the State or
citizen of the United States. As it is
u business attended with danger to
the community, it may. as already
said be entirely prohibited. No one
possesses an inalienable or constitu-
tional right to keep a saloon tor the
sale of Intoxicating liquor 1t is not
natural right TO pursue an ordinary
calling.
y Il II y
The same conclusion is reached from
a somewhat different premise in the
case of Lawton VS.. Steele 052 l.. S.,
1881, in which the United States Su-
preme Court, in discussing the extent
and limits of the police power, said:
ut is universally conceded to in
clude everything essential to the pub
lie safety, health and morals. and to
justify the prohibition of
places where Intoxicating liquors are
Sold
1t would require a volume to reprint
all of the decisions upholding the legal
and ethical soundness of prohibition
which have been pronounced by the
United States Supreme Court and the
supreme courts of the several States.
Not only iss there a consistent una
nimity in the conclusion, there has
been a growing judicial sentiment
that any law sanctioning any traffic
or practice which is injurious to the
public safety, health or morals is in
itself unconstitutional, in spite of the
legislative sanction. This sentiment
was tersely expressed by the United
State Supreme Court in Stone VS..
Mississippi, a lottery case 101 L. s..
814). where it was held
mo Legislature can bargain away
the public health or the public morals.
The people themselves cannot do it,
much less their servants.
* x X X
The conclusion of those decisions,
which deal directly with prohibition,
shows that since the first case that
came before the Supreme Court for
decision the right of the people to pro-
tect themselves from the physical. so
cial, economic and moral ravages of
the liquor traffic has been given the
vigorous and unanimous sanction of
that august tribunal.
w. G.. CAI.DERWOOD.