Daily American telegraph. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1851-1852, 1852-04-15

We say, that the argument from legal prece-
dent fails from defect of parallelism in mate
rial points between the cases
We do not say that the doctrine of prohibi-
ton, as proposed in the Maine Law" fails for
want of legal principle or social Justice We
are only saying that it has not yet been clearly
placed upon the principle which must support
it, And on this point we wish also to say, that
it is not enough that the highest legal trbu-
nal in the country has decided that State
laws prohibiting the traffic are not contrary to
the Constitution of the Federal Government
Only some things held to be inconsistent with
the reserved liberties of the People are forbid.
den by the National Constitution to the States,
and SO protected from abuse. The question
still remains Is it right in point of principle
and policy, whether constitutional or not
The world will be wiser by the time this prob
lem is solved, and the solution is received and
incorporated into the system of political sci
ence.
The right of self protection is not surrender
ed by the individual to society but it is on the
contrary largely re-enforced from the recipro-
cal life of the Commonwealth. The virtual
unity of all the members of society in one po-
litical person, brings the legal right to the sup
port of the moral duty of protecting our neigh
bors as ourselves; and we are strengthened and
enlarged in all our rights and duties concern
ing ourselves and our fellow men. The protec.
ton of rights and interests against wrong
doers, by whatsoever means are necessary and
expedient, is not questionable; but the distance
into the moral and spiritual life of the indvid-
ual which we may justly and wisely carry the
agencies Of force is the point to be ascertained,
Education, literary, scientific and religious, is
matter of social duty; it does not restrain the
liberty or interfere with the natural discipline
of the life by compulsion which takes away
responsibility and the developing power of it,
| Where is the limit? How far do the rights of
society reach into the life of the individual
man? The Governments of the earth are not
without the truth and right of principle in
them; but they have not found the boundary
yet nor felt all the force legitimately within
| them
The present excesses the present form, of
the traffic make it a public nuisance, and ii
ought to be abated if it can be. How shall it
be done; and how shall that be avoided in the
doing of it, which ought not to be done?
We want more light on this side of the sub
ject; and the arguments Of the opposition seem
to US to be good for nothing at all. We are
perhaps not well posted up but we have seen
very little that is credtabe either to the head or
heart of the liquor party, in the course Of such
discussion as the question has received. The
sermons of the saints are bad enough; but we
have no patience with those of the sinners
Their accursed trade is the disgrace of our civ
| ilization. The best of them do nothing to d.
vorce themselves from the very worst, and
never appear in the affray but to parade their
decencies and their interests by way of cover
for the crew which they refuse to be classed
with. Out upon them. Let honest true, hu-
man men, who have not forfeited their places
in the brotherhood of humanity settle the diff
Guilty decently. We do not call prisoners and
paupers into council when we charge ourselves
with the reformation and remedy of their
wickedness and wretchedness. We suffer with
them, and must suffer for them; but let the
hells be kept apart till they are redeemed
Our temperance friends in New York began
this agitation and effort with the open and for.
NAL acknowledgment that moral suasion fairly
tred-tried under as fair circumstances as
can be hoped for, and for sufficient length Of
time-has failed, and cannot be relied upon
Had they well considered that position before
they took it9 1t is to be hoped they had for
they naturally went to work to fortify it and
the faith once so confidently held in the
power of the word has we'll nigh slipped out
of the creed of reform. A still greater con-
cession has been made to the necessity of force,
in the action of the pulpit, the Protestant |
pulpit at least, by the clergy coming out of the
church to reform the world in a matter of
morals, through the agency of penal laws. This
is not union of Church and State but a sur
render of the Church to the State A few more |
such and its Office in the affairs of this world |
is gone. The ministry may begin its services
at our funerals, if our actual life has escaped
their regular jurisdiction. If the "rum-sellers"
are really averse to union Of Church and State, |
they may console themselves; for so far as this
movement goes, it is a confession that the
Church is dead, and that the State survives
having taken an advance step in the care and
government of its subjects. We do not object
to religion in law, or to life in religion We
need a morality to live in and by The ex-
isting provision for dying is sufficient We do
not object to clergymen for doing the duties of
cit;zanshin-wa denoopd ~ from, than, W. |