to declare a statute ineffective because its enactment was procured by bribing members of the legislature. The court held it could not do so. The Missouri court in _Slate_ v. _Clarke_, 54 _Mo._ 17, had before it a statute authorizing the licensing of bawdy houses and was urged to declare it unconstitutional because against public policy and destructive of good morals. The court held it had no such power. The Justices of the Maine Supreme Court in an opinion reported in 103 _Maine_ 508 stated the principle as follows: "It is for the legislature to determine from time to time the occasion and what laws are necessary or expedient for the defense and benefit of the people; and however inconvenienced, restricted, or even damaged particular persons and corporations may be, such general laws are to be held valid unless there can be pointed out some provision in the State or United States Constitution which clearly prohibits them." Further, it is a maxim of the judiciary, from the beginning and now, that no statute should be refused effect unless clearly contrary to some provision of the constitution,--unless the conflict is evident beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a maxim, a canon of interpretation, that courts always have in mind and apply in considering the question of the constitutionality of a statute. Thus scrupulous are the courts to keep within their proper sphere, to respect the limits of their powers. If the legislatures would be equally scrupulous, would themselves refrain from infringing on those rights and liberties of the citizen guaranteed by the constitution, there would be less restriction, less friction, less turmoil, less need of the judicial check, less injustice.