rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen."

In the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 116, Justice Bradley said: "This, it is true, was the violation of a political right; but personal rights were deemed equally sacred, and were claimed by the very first Congress of the Colonies, assembled in 1774, as the undoubted inheritance of the people of this country; and the Declaration of Independence, which was the first political act of the American people in their independent sovereign capacity, lays the foundation of our national existence upon this broad proposition: "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' Here again we have the great three-fold division of the rights of freemen, asserted as the rights of man. Rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are equivalent to the rights of life, liberty and property. These are the fundamental rights which can only be taken away by due process of law, and which can only be interfered with, or the enjoyment of which can only be modified, by lawful regulations necessary or proper for the mutual good of all; and these rights, I contend, belong to the citizens of every free government.

For the preservation, exercise and enjoyment of these rights the individual citizen, as a necessity, must be left free to adopt such calling, profession or trade as may seem to him most conducive to that end. Without this right he cannot be a freeman.

This right to choose one's calling is an essential part of that liberty which it is the object of government to protect; and a calling, when chosen, is a man's property and right. Liberty and property are not protected where these rights are arbitrarily

assailed."

The consensus of all these statements is that the pursuit of any lawful business is a constitutional right, yea, more than that, the pursuit of a lawful business is more than a mere right; it is property that can not be taken from him without due process of law. Hence, when the courts declare that the saloon is not a constitutional right, that is merely another way of saying that the saloon is an unlawful institution; that it is not lawful at common law. It is saying that pursuits that are lawful at common law are constitutional rights, and that those pursuits that are not constitutional rights are unlawful at common law. And it means also that a business that may be arbitrarily and wholly prohibited is both unconstitutional and unlawful at common law, and, as the saloon may be absolutely prohibited arbitrarily it is both unconstitutional and unlawful at common law. This is the full meaning of the statement that no one possesses a constitutional right to keep a saloon.

CHAPTER IX
їх

THE SALOON IS NOT AN INALIENABLE RIGHT

What are inalienable rights?

The Standard Dictionary says: "Inalienable" means "Not transferable; that can not be rightfully, properly or legally sold, conveyed or taken away."

The courts say: "No one possesses an inalienable right to keep a saloon for the sale of intoxicating liquor." Why? The Declaration of Independence says: "All men are created equal; they are endowed by Almighty God with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The United States Supreme Court has said that, among these inalienable rights "is the right of men to pursue any lawful business." Justice Bradley of that court said: "I hold that the liberty of pursuit, the right to follow any of the ordinary callings of life, is one of the privileges of a citizen of the United States, of which he can not be deprived without invading his right to liberty within the meaning of the constitution."

Liberty is an inalienable right. Liberty, within the meaning of the constitution, includes the right to follow any lawful business or calling. The pursuit of a lawful business or calling is, therefore, an inalienable right. The saloon is not an inalienable right, therefore, it is not a lawful trade or calling; it is not one of the civil or equal rights of men. A business that may be prohibited entirely can not be an inalienable right. The saloon may be prohibited entirely and arbitrarily, therefore, it is not an in

alienable right. A business that is not an inalienable right, may be wholly prohibited. The saloon is not an inalienable right, hence it may be prohibited altogether.

In the language of Justice Field: "Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment."

When the courts deny that the saloon is an inalienable right, they in effect, declare that it is not conductive to the happiness of mankind; they affirm that it is dangerous to and destructive of the happiness of citizens; and, being so, the saloon is unquestionably unlawful at common law.

The plainest and, perhaps, the most easily understood definition of inalienable rights is that of Justice Bradley, in Butcher's Union Co. vs. Crescent City Co., 111 U. S. 746, in the following language: "The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right. It was formulated as such under the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that ‘all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen."

Accepting this language as correct, the saloon is

not one of the common occupations of life, and it is not one of the common occupations of life, because it is harmful to society. It is not an inalienable right, because it is not one of the lawful callings of life; it is not protected by the "liberty" and "pursuit of happiness" clauses of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution. And, as it is not an inalienable right, it is not a constitutional right. Men have inalienable rights to do right, but no person can have an inalienable right to do a wrong.