156 



The Liquor Question. 



implied obligation that the owner's use of it shall not be injurious 

 to the community. " 



Here, then, are great powers possessed by the State which never have 

 been, and, in the nature of things, cannot be surrendered by the peo- 

 ple or restrained by constitutions or laws. These powers are known 

 in the law as the police powers of the State. It is by the exercise of 

 these powers that the State protects itself in the prevention and 

 punishment of crime, in guarding the public morals, in preserving 

 the public health, in securing the safety and promoting the general 

 well-being of society, even though in attaining those objects it be 

 necessary to sacrifice life, liberty or property. 



After the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitu- 

 tion of the United States, it was claimed that this had the effect 

 to take from the States those powers of police which had been re- 

 served to the States when the National Constitution was adopted. 

 The United States Supreme Court had occasion to consider that 

 question in the case of BarMer v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 31, and said: 

 "But neither the amendment— broad and comprehensive as it is— nor 

 any other amendment, was designed to interfere with the power of 

 the State, sometimes termed its police power, to prescribe regulations 

 to promote the health, peace, morals, education and good order of the 

 people, and to legislate so as to increase the industries of the State, 

 develop its resources, and add to its wealth and prosperity." 



Speaking in general terms, the powers of the English Parliament 

 are absolute and binding. Parliament is said to be omnipotent, 

 because its powers are not restricted, defined or prescribed by any 

 written constitution. It enacts such laws as it pleases on all sorts of 

 questions, affecting all sorts and conditions of men, and the English 

 courts are never called upon to test the constitutionality of an act of 

 Parliament. But, with us, perhaps, there is no constitutional question 

 that has been so persistently pressed upon the consideration of our 

 higher courts, as that class of legislation which seeks to invade the 

 rights of liberty and property. And the debatable line has been, was 

 the legislation attempted within the police powers of the State, so 

 called, or was it an invasion of constitutional guaranties under the 

 guise or pretense of preserving the public health or morals, or promot- 

 ing the general welfare. 



In re Jacobs, 98 N". Y. 98, Judge Earl, of our own Court of Ap- 

 peals, said: "Under the mere guise of police regulations, personal 

 rights and private property cannot be arbitrarily invaded, and the de- 

 termination of the Legislature is not final or conclusive. If it passes 



