162 The Liquor Question. 



authority to promote the common good. No one may rightfully do 

 that which the law-making power, upon reasonable grounds, declares 

 to be prejudicial to the general welfare." 



And again: " A prohibition simply upon the use of property for 

 purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the 

 health, morals or safety of the community cannot, in any just sense, 

 be deemed a taking or an appropriation of property for the public 

 benefit. Such legislation does not disturb the owner in the control or 

 use of his property for lawful purposes, nor restrict his right to dis- 

 pose of it, but it is only a declaration by the State that its use by any 

 one for certain forbidden purposes, is prejudicial to the public inter- 

 ests. Nor can legislation of that character come within the fourteenth 

 amendment, in any case, unless it is apparent that its real object is not 

 to protect the community, or to promote the general well-being, but, 

 under the guise of police regulation, to deprive the owner of his liberty 

 and property, without due process of law. 



" The power which the States have of prohibiting such use by individ- 

 uals of their property as will be prejudicial to the health, the morals 

 or the safety of the public, is not — and, consistently with the exist- 

 ence and safety of organized society, cannot be — burdened with the 

 condition that the State must compensate such individual owners for 

 pecuniary losses they may sustain by reason of their not being per- 

 mitted, by a noxious use of their property, to inflict injury upon the 

 community. The exercise of the police power by the destruction of 

 property, which is itself a public nuisance, or the prohibition of its 

 use in a particular way, whereby its value becomes depreciated, is 

 very different from taking property for public use, or from depriving 

 a person of his property without due process of law. In the one case, 

 a nuisance only is abated, in the other, unoffending property is taken 

 away from an innocent owner. 



" It is true, that, when the defendants in these cases purchased or 

 erected their breweries, the laws of the State did not forbid the manu- 

 facture of intoxicating liquors. But the State did not thereby give 

 any assurance, or come under an obligation, that its legislation upon 

 that subject would remain unchanged. Indeed, the supervision of 

 the public health and the public morals is a governmental power, 

 < continuing in its nature,' ' to be dealt with as the special exigencies of 

 the moment may require,' and c for this purpose, the largest legisla tive 

 discretion is allowed, and the discretion cannot be parted with any 

 more than the power itself.' 



