07 Dec




















To Sell Liquor is a Common Law Right. Since the above was written the supreme court of Indiana has had the question of the constitutionality 91 The Rule of "Not Too Much." of license laws squarely presented to it in the so-called Sopher case in which Judge Ira Christian of Noble- ville had followed Judge Artman. The supreme court declares the position that the license laws are uncon- stitutional wholly untenable and indefensible. It shows that as early as 1535 the English Parliament licensed and controlled the liquor traffic and that license laws have existed in Indiana since 1807, beginning with a territorial law. The overthrow of the statutes regulat- ing the liquor traffic would, says the court, "operate to restore all persons to their unrestricted rights under the common law to retail intoxicating liquors, and all who desire to engage in the traffic could do so with- out regard to their fitness, or, in other words, abso- lutely unrestricted." That not only settles the "freak" decision of Judge Artman but also demolishes one of the pet contentions of the anti-alcoholists that the right to sell liquor is not a common law right. The court here distinctly recognizes the right of every person to sell liquor without any restriction except such as may be imposed by law. This reverses the en-

Comments
* The email will not be published on the website.
I BUILT MY SITE FOR FREE USING