¶1I concur, but because this is a criminal case I do not concur in the order directing the appellant to pay costs. I also withhold assent to the proposition so broadly put, that all constitutional provisions conferring rights to acquire and possess, and affording protection to, property, are subject to the police power of the state. As to the question in hand, I think this: Prohibiting, regulating or restricting within the limits-of the state the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors as a beverage is a lawful exercise of the police power of the state, and for various reasons often stated is not open to the claim that the constitutional provisions referred to by such prohibition, regulation or restriction are invaded. But to.say that all property is acquired and held subject to the police power of the state is a different matter. I do not now yield assent to that.
46 Utah 288
State v. Briggs
Decided March 19, 1915
Utah Supreme Court · decided 1915-03-19
<p>1. Constitutional Law — Pbotection of Peopeety — Police Pow-ee. All constitutional provisions relating to the rights of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property must he construed as subject to the police power of the state, unless the Constitution expressly provides otherwise. (Page 290.)</p> <p>2. Intoxicating- Liquobs — Pbohibition—Constitutionality. The state has the right, under its police, power, absolutely to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors; the provisions of the state Constitution respecting the protection of property rights being no broader than those of other states. (Page 290.)</p> <p>3. Constitutional Law — Intoxicating Liquobs — Local Option— Constitutionality. The local option statute is not unconstitutional as a delegation by the state of its police power to municipalities, since it may make such delegation in the premises. (Page 291.)</p> <p>4. Constitutional Law — Delegation of Powee — Local Option Law. Laws of 1911, c. 106, the local option statute, is not unconstitutional as being a delegation of legislative powers to the voters of the various local option units, since all that such voters may do under the act is to choose one of two methods to control the liquor traffic. , (Page 291.)</p> <p>5. Statutes — Local Option Law — -Constitutionality. Laws of 1911, c. 106, the local option statute, is not unconstitutional as a general law and not of uniform operation.1 (Page_)</p> <p>STRAUP, C. J., dissenting in part.</p>
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1993
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
AFFIRMED · Decided 1915-03-19
View the full empirical analysis of this case →