Tlie Liquor Question. 159 



see fit, or regulate with whatever care it might choose, either the 

 manufacture, sale or use thereof as a beverage. 



In making this broad statement, I am not unmindful of the fact 

 that there is very high judicial authority for holding that although 

 given legislation may be within the exercise of the police powers of 

 the State, yet that property existing at and before such legislation, 

 either in the form of invested capital, in manufacturing establish- 

 ments, and the like, or in spirituous liquors on hand, cannot be in- 

 terfered with so far as either to prevent the sale or use thereof, or 

 otherwise interfere with its enjoyment, so as, in fact, to destroy its 

 value and essential attributes of property. 



Our own Court of Appeals in the Wynehamer Case, in passing upon 

 the constitutionality of the prohibitory measures of the law of 1855, 

 held these propositions: 



"1. The prohibitory act in its operation upon property in intoxicat- 

 ing liquors existing in the hands of any person within this State when 

 the act took effect, is a violation of the provision in the Constitution 

 of this State, which declares that no person shall be deprived of life, 

 liberty or property, without due process of law. 



" That the various provisions, prohibitions and penalties contained 

 in the act do substantially destroy the property in such liquors, in 

 violation of the terms and spirit of the constitutional provision. 



"2. That inasmuch as the act does not discriminate between such 

 liquors existing when it took effect as a law, and such as might there- 

 after be acquired by importation or manufacture, and does not coun- 

 tenance or warrant any defense based upon the distinction referred 

 to, it cannot be sustained in respect to any liquor, whether existing at 

 the time the act took effect or acquired subsequently," etc. 



There was a very strong dissent in that case, and I cannot believe 

 but what, in the light of the later decisions involving the exercise of 

 these police powers, our courts would sustain legislation of that kind. 

 For example, our present Court of Appeals has held that a law pro- 

 hibiting the sale or exchange, or exposure for sale, of milk shown to 

 contain more than eighty-eight per cent of water or fluids, or lesa 

 than twelve per cent of milk solids, and not less than three per cent 

 of fat, or any articles of food made from the same, or from cream 

 from the same, was a constitutional exercise by the Legislature of its 

 police powers; and yet in the case where the question was raised, the 

 undisputed evidence was that the milk exposed for sale was only 

 a small fraction below the standard, was drawn from healthy 

 cow.-?, properly fed and kept, into which no substance had been 



