Spirit of the age. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1849-1865, 1853-09-21
JACKSON N. G., Sept. 18th, 1853.

CAChSON ~. O., bopG. 1ZLu, 1COO.
Mr.. EDIToR In your paper of the 7th
inst, a communication is published over the
signature of { Invincible'' detailing the pro-
ceeding of a temperance meeting held at Tur-
ners x Roads in the County of Northampton
on the 9th ult. l am reported as one of the
speakers on that occasion ; and while l thank
my young friend "Invincible' for the un-
merited compliment which he has paid me,
| think his report requires some explanation
on my part, in order, that my views may be
more fully understood.
/ have no desire, Mr.. Editor, to obtrude my
personal opinions upon your readers, or to
seek controversy with my temperance friends
But feeling an interest in the temperance
cause, and having to some extent partlcipa-
ted in tine public advocacy ofthe same, beg
that you will allow me a short space in your
columns for the purpose indicated.
The subject of Temperance Legislation has
been for some time past, and is still agita-
ting the public mind in n c. to a cOnsidera-
BILE extent. Much discrepancy of opinion
prevails amongst temperance men upon this
subject. And considering the diversity of
views that have been expressed, it is a mat
ter of interest to every friend of the temper
ance cause to enquire what is to be the result.
That the liquor traffic is a competent subject
for legislation cannot be questioned by any
one-but the extent to which legislation
should be had upon it, is a question involving
important considerations. The chief ques-
ton which has been raised amongst temper
ance men, is, as to the extent. Some con-
tend that it is necessary and proper to go to
the extent of abolishing the traffic altogether,
while others go for restraining it within the
clear public demands. Here are two dis
tinct systems of legislation proposed. The
one q prohibitory-the other a restrictive sys
tenn. Now the position which / have uni
formly taken, is in favor Of the latter sys
tenn. l go freely for restraining the traffic
by law as far as it can be shown to bea pub
lie evil. In other words as far as the pub
lie good demands" But not for prohibitin;
it entirely bylaw, unless it can be shown tina
it is a public evil entire and in every instance
Now, this L think cannot be shown, for Their
are a great many instances, / suppose, wher
the traffic in liquor, like as in other things
occurs between persons at times and places
/, and under circumstances, when the public
not Injured, and if such instances do occur
. and are likely to occur. repeatedly. betwee
good citizens, then a prohibitory law woul
in my Judgment be unnecessary and improT
err, inasmuch as it would destroy the natl
raj liberty of good citizens in this thing, I
PhN'OA CISAthR LOpCA OAOLSloOOA 4 ia Oc90 OkAC7
: Now it is held I believe by the best legal a,
thors, that civil liberty is natural libert
so far restrained as is necessary for the puI
| lie good" while natural liberty is liberty u
3 restrained except by the laws Of Cod" Civ
liberty then, is the liberty which the publ
exercises over individual citizens and ma
: ural liberty, is the liberty which individu
%citlZons exercise in behalf of themselves.
: Now according to all good rules in societ
: the natural liberty Of the citizen should n
| be prohibited, unless the public can sho
j. that it is necessary for the general good
r This l again repeat, has not been shown
e the matter in question, to my satisfactio
: and until such can be shown, I am Oppose
: to a prohlbitory law.
e 1t may be asked Whatthen would I go fo
s l answer for such an amendment of our pre-
ent system of laws as would the more efie
s tually prevent the public evils of the liqu
e traffic and beyond this for " moral suasion
e w. S. COPELAND.