Eidge v. City of Bessemer
Citation | 164 Ala. 599,51 So. 246 |
Parties | EIDGE v. CITY OF BESSEMER. |
Decision Date | 30 June 1909 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1909.
Appeal from City Court of Bessemer; William Jackson, Judge.
W. S Eidge was convicted of unlawfully keeping intoxicants on storage, and he appeals. Reversed and rendered.
The ordinance is as follows:
Section 3 provides a punishment for a violation.
The other matters sufficiently appear in the opinion.
Thomas T. Huey and Pinkney Scott, for appellant.
Ben G. Perry, H. A. Lock, J. A. Smith, and Samuel D. Weakley, for appellee.
The proceeding against the appellant was had under an ordinance of the city of Bessemer which will appear in the reporter's statement of the case. It is at this day universally held that the prohibition by the state of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors and beverages within its territory is a constitutional exercise of the police power. The multiplication in recent years of statutes and court decisions relating to the subject indicates a general and growing determination to make prohibition effective according to the popular intent. Mr. Black, a much-quoted authority on the subject, states the theory and policy of such laws in the following language: Black, § 39. No purpose to put intoxicating liquors outside the pale of the law has ever as yet been announced in statutory enactment. On the contrary, so far as this state is concerned, the general prohibition law of November 23, 1907 (Acts Sp. Sess. 1907, p. 71), preserves by exception to retail druggists the right to sell alcohol and wine for certain designated purposes, and necessarily further recognizes the lawfulness of keeping intoxicating liquors and beverages by a provision that the act shall not prohibit the serving of the liquors and beverages mentioned therein in private residences in ordinary social intercourse. In the License Cases, 5 How. 504, 12 L.Ed. 256, Taney, C.J., says: "Spirits and distilled liquors are universally admitted to be subjects of ownership and property." In Dorman v. State, 34 Ala. 216, in a judgment sustaining a local prohibition statute, R. W. Walker, J., said: . This decision was rendered in 1859. The fact that an intervening vis major has overruled it in part does not affect its force or application to the case in hand. In Ex parte Mayor of Florence, 78 Ala. 419, it was said that "liquors are considered property, the subject of ownership, and entitled to protection, though, like other property, held subject to the condition that it shall not be so used as to injure the equal rights of others, or the interests of the community."
Counsel for appellee announce their inability to see any justice or common sense in a rule which would differentiate intoxicating liquors and beverages from burglars' tools, lottery tickets, infected clothing, or diseased animals. They argue that liquors are put by the statute outside the pale of the law. Much the same argument was made in Preston v. Drew, 33 Me. 558, 54 Am. Dec. 639. In response, Shepley, C.J., said: In Lincoln v. Smith, 27 Vt. 328, the court says: In the case of West Virginia v. Gilman, 33 W.Va. 146, 10 S.E. 283, 6 L. R. A. 847, the defendant was charged under a statute which made it an offense to "solicit or receive orders for, or keep in his possession for another, spirituous liquors," etc. The court, observing that the provision of the statute which prohibited the keeping in possession for another had no reference to the intent or purpose for which the liquors were kept, but denounced as a crime the simple fact that the liquor was kept in possession for another, however innocent the act or commendable the purpose, and announcing its opinion that, if it be a crime for a person to keep liquor in his possession for another, it would be equally so for him to keep it for himself, said: And later on:
In the case of State v. Williams, 146 N.C. 618, 61 S.E. 61 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 299, the court had under consideration a local prohibition statute for the county of Burke, which, after declaring it to be unlawful to manufacture, sell, or otherwise dispose of liquors in the county named, provided as follows: "It shall be further unlawful for any person, except as a druggist, for medical purposes, as aforesaid, to bring into said county of Burke, in any day, more than one-half gallon of such spirituous, vinous or malt liquors." The court announced its opinion in the following language: "Chapter 806 of the Laws of 1907, prohibiting any person from carrying into the county of Burke in any one day more than one-half gallon of vinous, spirituous, or malt liquor, is not a valid exercise of the police power, for that it unduly restricts the right of the citizen to the use if his property, without any intent to violate any prohibited act in relation to it; that the carrying into the county of Burke of the prohibited quantity has no reasonable, substantial relation to the sale of liquors as prohibited by law." We indulge one further quotation, from high authority, as succinctly stating the limitation upon the Legislature in the exercise of the police power: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Application of Crane
... ... or their boards of county commissioners, or municipal ... authorities of any incorporated city or village, is left the ... decision to accept or reject its terms and conditions. It is, ... Campbell, 133 Ky. 50, 117 S.W. 383, 19 Ann. Cas. 159, 24 ... L. R. A., N. S., 172; Eidge v. Bessemer, 164 Ala ... 599, 51 So. 246, 26 L. R. A., N. S., 394; French v ... Birmingham, ... ...
-
Marasso v. Van Pelt
...is an abridgment of the privileges and immunities of the citizen without any legal justification, and, as such, void. Eidge v. Bessemer, 164 Ala. 599, 51 So. 246, 26 R. A. (N. S.) 394, and note; Commonwealth v. Campbell, 133 Ky. 50, 117 S.W. 393, 19 Ann. Cas. 159, and note; [ Commonwealth v......
-
Ex Parte Francis
... ... headnotes to the case of Sullivan v. City of Oneida, ... 61 Ill. 242; Preston v. Drew, 33 Me. 558, 54 Am ... Dec. 639; State v ... 159; City of ... Shreveport v. Hill, 134 La. 352, 64 So. 137, Ann. Cas ... 1916A, 283; Eidge v. City of Bessemer, 164 Ala. 599, ... 51 So. 246, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 394; State of West ... ...
-
Neisel v. Moran
... ... rel. Clarkson v. Phillips, 70 Fla. 340, 70 So. 367, Ann ... Cas. 1918A, 138; City of Jacksonville v. Bowden, 67 ... Fla. 181, 64 So. 769, L. R. A. 1916D, 913, Ann. Cas. 1915D, ... See City of Delta v ... Charlesworth (Colo.) 170 P. 965. See, also, Eidge v ... City of Bessemer, 164 Ala. 599, 51 So. 246, 26 L. R. A ... (N. S.) 394, referred to in ... ...