428 HASTINGS—POLICE POWER OF THE STATE. [June 19, 
same question was in Indiana, in *Beebe vs. The State, decided 
otherwise by a majority of the state Supreme Court in a judicial de- 
bate almost as energetic as any of those in the federal Supreme 
Court. 
Here the new constitutional doctrines were fully exploited, and 
are characterized as the ‘‘ great discovery ’’ of rights in the people 
as against the legislature, as well as against executive officers. The 
court holds, through Chief Justice Perkins, that a law forbidding 
any sales of intoxicating liquors except by the agent of the state, 
and by him only for certain named purposes, is an unwarranted 
invasion of ‘‘ industry ’’ as well as of individual rights. The dis- 
senting opinions by two of the judges are very interesting, as show- 
ing what is the real basis supporting the claim for extended police 
power for the states, namely: The feeling of its absolute necessity 
and the fact of its long exercise. 
Indeed, the first reason, which is always dwelt upon, evidently 
arises in large degree from the latter. Because the community has 
not done without such use of political power is evidently in large 
part the foundation of the fear that it cannot do so. It is interest- 
ing to note that the majority of the court, in holding that the legis- 
lature had no power to pass the law, do not propose to limit abso- 
lutely the sovereignty of the state. They still hold that the state 
can pass such a regulation, but they say the state is the sovereign 
and not the legislature. The constitutional restrictions they think 
have not left so much power in the legislature, and they argue the 
sovereignty of the people in the state in terms like those of James 
Wilson in the early decisions of the federal Supreme Court and in 
his lectures. 
The Indiana Supreme Court was not alone in thus standing out 
against extreme prohibition by act of the legislature. The New 
York Court of Appeais in 1856 passed upon the cases of *Wyne- 
hamer vs. The People and The ?People vs. Toynbee. ‘The legisla- 
ture of New York in 1855 passed an act making it the duty of 
every sheriff, constable, marshal or policeman to arrest any person 
whom he might see actually violating section 1 of the act. 
This section provided that intoxicating liquors should not be 
sold or kept for sale by any one anywhere, nor given away, nor 
kept for that purpose anywhere except in a dwelling-house, in no 
16 Ind., 501. PURINA Es Guise 
