But then the anti-alcoholists have always paraded with tions power to control and regulate the liquor traffic within whether by prohibiting or by restricting and licensing the Press says that the question of the constitutionality of cannot be anticipated. Of course, literally this is true. ple to engage in such traffic in any such sense as to remove United States declaring that the right to sell liquor is sale of such liquors. In the absence of legislation, the busi- cognized as lawful, but there is no inherent right in the peo- this means what it says. The Associated Prohibition traffic. The court said : not a natural right inherent in citizenship, although of their sovereign power have full authority, except as re- prescribed territory. * * * the evils resulting from the traffic in intoxicating liquors, it from the sphere of legislative control. * * * is squarely presented the judgment of the higher court deemed expedient to suppress intemperance and minimize It is well settled that the several states in the exercise stricted by constitutional provision, to enact any measure In the absence of constitutional inhibition it is competent for the legislature of a state to delegate to municipal corpora- the license law was not at issue and until the question ness of selling intoxicating liquors has universally been re- The prohibitionists, however, refuse to admit that great gusto the utterance of the Supreme Court of the This is surely as clear as need be.