They are expressed in no doubtful or hesitating form of speech: Chief Justice Taney said: "If any State deems the retail and internal traffic in ardent spirits injurious to its citizens, and calculated to produce idleness, vice or debauchery, I see nothing in the Constitution of the United States to prevent it from regulating or restraining the traffic, or from prohibiting it altogether, if it thinks proper."-- [5 Howard, 577.] Hon.

Justice McLean said: "A license to sell is a matter of police and revenue within the power of the State."-- [5 Ibid., 589.] "If the foreign article be injurious to the health and morals of the community, a State may prohibit the sale of it." Hon.

Justice Catron said: "If the State has the power of restraint by license to any extent, she may go to the length of prohibiting sales altogether."-- [5 Ibid., 611.] Hon.

Justice Grier said: "It is not necessary to array the appalling statistics of misery, pauperism and crime which have their origin in the use and abuse of ardent spirits.

The police power, which is exclusively in the State, is competent to the correction of these great evils, and all measures of restraint or prohibition necessary to effect that purpose are within the scope of that authority."-- [Ibid., 532.] That the State has a clear right to prohibit the sale of intoxicating drinks, because this sale not only hurts all other interests, but destroys the health and degrades the morals of the people, has been fully shown.
The question next to be considered is, Can prohibitory laws be enforced?
and if so, will they remove from the people the curse of drunkenness?
CAN PROHIBITORY LAWS BE ENFORCED?
As to the complete enforcement of any salutory law, that depends mainly on the public sentiment regarding it, and on the organized strength of its opposers.