New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-07-21

spirit we presume the tipplers would hail II WIN
rapturous applause-woud cheer II, toast IL, g'oIy
in il as the ne plus ultra Of wisdom torethoughten
benevolent social economy Not Whisper Wouiuo
heard OF the sacredness Of individual lloeiV'
Between this and the provision not to sell any
liquor whether more oress poisonous there Is prac-
tic,lly onlya difference in degree IN Principe thero
is not shade Of difference. When the Ia" CON
dennis unsoupd meat to destruction, 1t reaches
down the citizens throat" with open and rude
bsnd and saws. this fatal ament shall be here de-
MED access. 1t promptly and boldly depnves nun
of the right to Judge what is betting his peculiar
annette, and suitable at the same time to MS
purse Ii interferes not with an excitement ora
Measure but with his "daily bread, and under
taxes to determine what he shall not eat yet no
one gets up a cry of al urn about the great pr'i-
lege of " sneezing" being jeopardized.
Again, in the case OF an epidemic, the law oileh
interferes to restrain citizen from INDUCING MS
prediction for filth 1t will obige him to deprive
himself of the savory odor of his cesspool ana re-
move the DUNG. hill from his nose, thus interfering
with his individual liberty. And again, 1t 'fao-
bling became common, and bOwe-knlyes we're me
surest instruments of assassination, who Woaid
regard it as infraction of constitutional liberty
to prevent their sale, nay, even to punish the pos
session of onel
The writer in the Democratic Review feeling
that the great charter of independence Is slipping
from his hold coldly diluted by the Maine l. qdor
Law and deeming il valueess unless It can pre-
serve the inyiolabty Of rIm-holes, calls ia,tiy
for new one, having that holy OBJECT Tor ks hISI
principle. Instead OF the three great I'm nutaOie
! rights, which that instrument indicates lot al
men, namely, LIFE, LIBERTY, and TUE PURSUIT
| OF HAPPINESS" he would have il read, DEATH
| DRUNKENNESS, and THE PURSUIT OF RUIN. IHsh
would follow, by way of illustration,
81 drink what earn, nor pay what owe 80.
But what's that 60 any one whether or 40
| No doubt he would claim for the new gospel the
sanction of the paffeS PdtriT' aRd for that par-
pose he would had it necessary to employ 'he
| agency of "medu
| Seriously speaking, is there not something pro-
fansly revolving IN this association OF the great
law of human rights with the immunity OF the
| grog. shop?
Having fully settled with his conscience his
abstract light 10 drink, the reviewer proceeds 10
lament the imminent jeopardy into when the
| Maine Law would bring his convictions, morai,
religious political and philosophical. lie recog,,
nzes no distinction between a " mint luiep ana
"a draught Of grace - and insists, that to inter-
dict the one is in fact to stop the supply IN case
of the other. Whether it is that he thinks t1it
few libations would 60 far to lubrcate the wav
for higher inspiration and assure the "m9Hd
Temporal, ;" or that he deems them )f kindred cha
racter he does not vOuchsafe to ex Jlaln.
His right to drink is the base of the pgram d.
Then comes his right to think then - worship
then to sDeeze; then to whistle then to snore'
then to blow his nose, 10 tume, 20 chew - sp'V'
Sap the foundation, and down they tumble. topsy-
turvy. There is, however, slight distinction,
which the reviewer thinks it below him To notice.
Some of the sacred and invaded rights which ere
to go by default if the right TO drink be touched,
are necessities of nature, which 10 humin la"
can reach and no human art can arrest for mo-
ment. The logic that identities them with the
others is above or below scrutiny When man
cOnfounds deliriIm tremens with an eXamln atom
of the Athanasan creed or a denial OF Plato
divinity his sanity would seem to be the hrst
question needing determination.
But the reviewer shapes his syllogism with m
finite art. If" he saws, you have not right -
determine what is good or bad proper improper,
for your body. n |ortiOri, you have not right 10
determine what IS proper or improper good or
bad, for your soul; the point in DO n cases Is,
whether ii is yourself or some one else, wao IS 70
Judge"
This is very specous, butt is utterly untenable.
| First, it is fallacy to assume that the law
touches the right to drink at all. Every man may
drink what he likes, as much as he likes, and
where he likes, except in public house, and even
there the drlnker ncurs no penalty aud meets Il ,
impeachment. This, of course, is a full and con-
elusive answer. But suppOslag the reasoning MT
faulty in the premise, il is false in its conclusion.
in the whisky drinking there is nothing TO Judge,
unless, indeed we are to determine whether Il -
we'll to die delirOus. Ask him who died o We'd
nesday ask him, the martyr Of the TOmbs. Bu,
the reviewer answers: Suicide is a personal
right" and comes within the terns of lite, ll5er-
ty and the pursuit of happiness" Even so. The
drunkard is no suicide. He dies against his Will.
He yields to no reason, good or bad. He has lost
all power to determine and the right to do an act
presupposes capacity. The mere idiot has no
rights. The public safety demands that his phys
ical manhood, which has no will to direct IL,
should be imprisoned, pinoned, and rendered
harmless. drunken man is an idiot, with his
capacity for evil sharpened. 1.-The be harmless, he
is apublic nuisance if he be ill-disposed, he is a
public terror. This is no question needing discus
sion or determining. IT'S PLAIN, palpible fact,
which challenges the shame and disgust Of the
community every day in the week, and in every
lane in our City.
The right Of speech ITSELF the dearest Of all
rights which tyranny attempts to limit, is no mere
abstract principle incapable of notification No
man has stronger convictions than lunatic. No
man reasons with a greater tenacity, having once
dc ermned on certain premises, which are, in geo.
ersl an infatuation. tie has no right to pursue
you through the street, and cry that you have a
swarm Of bees hanging at your nose, or that You
are burdened with pair of horns. His convic-
tons would be no justicati for such folly and
nuisance. The right of speech in his mouth would
be farce.
~