150 



Tlie Liquor Question. 



to present to you some of the opinions and conclusions of eminent 

 jurists bearing upon that question. The first question naturally aris- 

 ing under this branch of the discussion will be, Do intoxicating liquors 

 constitute property within the meaning of the law, as establishing the 

 proposition that a law which does prevent the sale or use of property 

 is equivalent to depriving the owner of his property without due pro- 

 cess of law ? 



In the case of Wynehamer v. People, 13 N. Y. 378, which involved its 

 constitutionality, Judge Comstock, speaking for the majority of the 

 court, said: "It is, I believe, universally admitted that when this law 

 was passed intoxicating liquors, to be used as a beverage, were property 

 in the most absolute and unqualified sense of the term, and, as such, as 

 much entitled to the protection of the Constitution as lands, houses 

 or chattels of any description. From the earliest ages they have been 

 produced and consumed as a beverage, and have constituted an article 

 of great importance in the commerce of the world. In this country 

 the right of property in them was never, so far as I know, for an 

 instant questioned. In this State they were bought and sold like 

 other property ; they were seized and sold upon legal process, for the 

 payment of debts ; they were, like other goods, the subject of actions 

 at law ; and when the owner died their value constituted a fund for 

 the benefit of his creditors, or went to his children and kindred, 

 according to law or the will of the deceased. They entered largely 

 into the foreign and internal commerce of the State, and when sub- 

 jected to the operation of this statute, many millions in value were 

 invested in them. In short, I do not understand it to be denied that 

 they were property in just as high a sense as any other possession 

 which a citizen can acquire. Judicial authority might be cited, but 

 this does not seem necessary where there is scarcely a controversy." 

 Again, he says : " The foundation of property is not in philosophic 

 or scientific speculations, nor even in the suggestions of benevolence 

 or philanthropy. It is a simple and intelligible proposition admitting, 

 in the nature of the case, of no qualification, that that is property 

 which the law of the land recognizes as such. It is, in short, an insti- 

 tution of law, and not a result of speculations in science, in morals or 

 economy." 



It would be easy to multiply authorities, but that is not necessary. 



In this connection I shall assume, what is undoubtedly true on au- 

 thority, that spirituous liquors are property, and that they may law- 

 fully be manufactured, sold and used, except so far as their manu- 

 facture and use may be enjoined by the State, as I shall have occasion 



