Appeal of Allyn

• Citation: 81 Conn. 534,71 A. 794
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Decision Date: 22 January 1909
• Parties: Appeal of ALLYN.

71 A. 794

81 Conn. 534

Appeal of ALLYN.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Jan. 22, 1909.

Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Silas A. Robinson, Judge.

Charles B. Allyn, a taxpayer, appealed to the superior court of Fairfield county from a decision of the county commissioners thereof granting a license to an individual for the sale of intoxicating liquors. There was a judgment pro forma affirming the decision of the commissioners, and the said Allyn appeals. Affirmed.

Thomas C. Coughlin and Frank L. Wilder, for appellant.

Homer S. Cummings, for appellee.

BALDWIN, C. J. The sole ground of the appeal to this court is that the license law (Gen. St. 1902, cc. 157, 158) is void. The claim is that the sale of intoxicating liquors to be drunk as a beverage at the place of sale is so destructive to the public health and so inherently immoral that no law upholding it can be valid either under the Constitution of tills state or of the United States. The appellant first contends: That, as the people of Connecticut, in the preamble of their Constitution, gratefully acknowledge "the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government," this is a recognition of God as the source of that government; that the Bible contains the "Word of God;" that it condemns the use and sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage; and therefore that the state cannot permit it on any terms.

There was a time in the early history of this commonwealth when the Bible was, "in the defect of a law in any particular case," a rule of political government. Col. Rec. of Conn. I, 509. But even then it was never considered to contain any absolute prohibition of such a business as that for which the license now in question was granted. As early as 1643 it was provided by the colonial laws that no person or persons should sell wine or "strong water in any place within these libertyes, without license from the particular court or any two magistrates." Col. Rec. of Conn. I, 100. Cf. Id., 154. Our Code of 1650 (Col. Rec. I, 533), under the title of "Inkeepers," recited that: "Forasmuch as there is a necessary use of bowses of common intertainement in every commonwealth, and of such as retaile wine, beare and victualls, yet because there are so many abuses of that lawfull libberty, both by persons interteining and persons interteined, there is allso need of strict lawes and rules to regulate such an imployment." Legislation of a similar character appears in subsequent revisions of the statutes, down to the date of the adoption of our Constitution. St. 1715, p. 123; Rev. St. 1808, p. 640, tit. 158, c. 1; Sess. Laws 1810, p. 33, c. 7. It had been one of the permanent features of that free government, for the enjoyment of which the people expressed in that instrument, in the language quoted, their gratitude to the good providence of God. In the face of this long history of dealing with the use and sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, to be drunk at the place where they are purchased, it is idle to claim that the framers of the Constitution understood or intended that anything contained in it should be regarded as prohibiting altogether the licensing of such a business. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 175, 22 L. Ed. 627. Our Constitution (article 3, § 1) vests "the legislative power of this state" in the General Assembly. That power covers the whole field of legitimate legislation, except so far as limitations are to be found in other provisions of this Constitution or in that of the United States. The latter provides (article 4, § 4) that the "United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government." Connecticut is therefore impliedly bound forever to maintain such a form of government She put her legislative power in the hands of the General Assembly. She put only, because she could put only, such power of that nature as was consistent with a republican form of government. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 87, 3 L. Ed. 162; Welch v. Wadsworth, 30 Conn. 149, 155, 79 Am. Dec. 239. In constitutional republics, as was observed by Chief Justice Chase in a case where arguments somewhat resembling those now made at our bar were advanced, "there are, undoubtedly, fundamental principles of morality and justice which no Legislature is at liberty to disregard; but it is equally undoubted that no court, except in the clearest...