Democratic Sentinel, Volume 11, Number 46, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 December 1887 — VICTORY FOR PROHIBITION. [ARTICLE]

VICTORY FOR PROHIBITION.

The Kansas Statutes Sustained by the United States Supreme Court The United States Supreme Court has rendered a decision sustaining the State in the Kansas prohibition cases. The effect of this opinion is to declare valid the prohibition laws of the State of Kansas, and is of course a decided victory for the Prohibitionists. The decision is very important, and likely to be far-reaching in its consequences. The judgment of the court was pronounced in a long and elaborate opinion by Mr. Justice Har.au: The Justice said it had been held repeatedly that the right of a State to regulate the sale of liquor did not invade the constitutional rights of the citizen. It was contended, however, he said, that no State Legislature had a right to prohibit any person from manufacturing liquor for his own use or for export, for the reason that it was an invasion of the personal liberty inherent in citizens. It must be observed, however, he said, that the right to manufacture drink for one's own use was subject to the restriction that it should not injuriously affect the public. The right to determine what was injurious had to exist somewhere, and the right of determining what measures were necessary for the preservation of the public morals, health and safety had heretofore been vested in the States by the constitutional right given them under the police power to regulate their own internal concerns. ‘While this uolice power could not be Housed and must only be exercised for objects of real merit, this court would certainly not say that the liquor traffic was not one which the State could lawfully prohibit, because it was well known that the abuse of intoxicants was productive of pauperism and crime. The next ground of contention, the Justice said, was, that as the breweries had been erected prior to the passage of the prohibition law, and, as they were of Little use except for breweries, their property was taken without due process of law in violation of the Constitution. But all property under our form of government, he held, was subject to thd obligation that it should not be used so as to injuriously affect the rights of the community, and thereby become a nuisance. The State of Kansas had a right to prohibit the liquor traffic. It did not thereby take away the the property of brewers. It simply abated a nuisance. The property was not taken away from its owners; they were only prohibited from using it for a specific purpose, which the Legislature declared to be injurious to the community. Justice Feld concurred in the opinion so far as it related to the two cases in which the State of Kansas was defendant He agreed, he said, to so much of the opinion as sustains the validity of the act of Kansas prohibiting the sale of intoxicants which are manufactured in the State after the passage of the act. He was not prepared, however, to say that the prohibition of the manufacture of such liquors, if intended for exportation, can be sustained, nor that the State can forbid the sale under proper regulations for the protection of the health and morals of the people of any article which Congress may authorize to be imported. He was not ready to admit that New York or any other coast State can thus defeat an act of Congress. Neither could he concur in the validity Of .the thirteenth section of the prohibition act of Kansas, because he believed it authorized the destruction of property without due process of law. He could not see upon what principle the Legislature, after closing the brewery, can order the destruction of liquor, which it admits may be valuable for medical or mechanical purposes ; nor could he see why the protection of the morals of the State required the destruction of bottles and other utensils after the liquor had been emptied from them.

Another Important Supreme Court Decision. The case of the imprisoned officials of Virginia has been decided by the United States Supreme Court in their favor, .the State being sustained at all points. The court declares, in substance, that a State cannot be sued or coerced in the Fedetal courts, whether the action be brought against it by name or against its officials in their official capacity. Judge Harlan’s was the only dissenting opinion. Sparks from the Wires. The failure is announced at Indianapolis of Theodore Pfafflin <fc Co., dealers in muscial instruments. Their liabilities are placed at >75,000. Peter Bennett, a wealthy farmer at Newport, Mass., was shot and severely beaten by burglars, who robbed him of $32,000 in bills and gold. The Fiftieth Congress assembled on Monday, Dec. 5, and such formalities were observed as are usual at the opening of a session. In the Senate Mr. Ingalls occupied the chair. Contrary to expectation, no objection was made to the admission of Mr. Turpie, but Mr. Faulkner, of West Virginia, it was determined, could not take his seat until certain questions which might affect the validity of his election were settled. The Democratic caucus nominees for officers of the House were all chosen. When the election of a Speaker came before the House John G. Carlisle was nut in nomination by Mr. Cox, of New York' and Thomas B. B ad by Mr. Cannon, of Hlinois. The vote resulted as follows: Total number of votes cast, 313. For Carlisle, 163; for Reed, 118; for Brumm, of Pennsylvanii* 2. Of the four Independents Anderson, of lowa, voted for Carlisle; Nicholls, of North Carolina, and Smith, of Wisconsin, for Brumm, ■while Hopkins, of Virginia, did not vote. The Clerk thereupon declared Mr. Carlisle to be the duly elected Sneaker, and that gentleman was escorted to the Speaker’s desk by Messrs. Cox and Reed, amid loud applause. The oath of office having been administered by Mr. Kelley, of Pennsylvania, the Speaker rapped the House to order and Mr. Carlisle made a speech of thanks, in which he said: “It must be evident to every one who hp,s taken even a partial survey of public affairs that the time has now come Xvhen a revision of our revenue laws and a reduction of taxation are absolutely necessary in order to prevent a large and dangerous accumulation of money in tne Treasury. Whether this ought or ought not to have been done heretofore is a question ■which it would be useless now to discuss. It is sufficient for us to know that the financial condition of - the Government and the private business of the people alike demand the prompt consideration of these subjects and the speedy enactment of some substantial measure of relief. Unfortunately, we are menaced -by dangers from opposite directions. While a policy of non-action must inevitably result, sooner or later, in serious injury to the country, we cannot be unmindful of the fact that hasty and inconsiderate legislation on subjects more or less affecting large financial and industrial interests might produce, temporarily at least, disturbances and embarrassments which a more prudent course ‘.would entirely avoid. Investments made and labor employed in the numerous and valuable industries which have grown up under our present system of taxation ought not to be rudely disturbed by sudden and radical changes in the ,policy to which they have adjusted themselves ; but the just demands of an overtaxed people and the obvious requirements of the financial situatiorf' cannot be entirely ignored without seriously imperiling much greater and more widely extended interests than any that could possibly be injuriously affected by a moderate and reasonable reduction of duties, *