The Ohio organ, of the temperance reform. (Cincinnati, [Ohio]) 1853-1854, 1853-03-11

those liqhors which the owners intend
to sell, "a be Used as 4 beverage, an
dessroy them or give them to the
earth, which can drink them and not
stagger. Is there anything unreason-
able in this demand Have yoa not
an unquestionable right to enact a
law which shall invade private prop
erty, when that property interferes
with the public good? Is there any
thing new or novel in that Legislation
which sacrifices private property to
the well-being of the whole commu-
nifty? Says an able jurist* of Massa-
chusetts
"There is nothing novel in that destruc-
tion of private personal property, for the
public good, from entire cargoes Of Smyrna
figs, to boxes of rotten oranges. Counter
felt money is private property. Dogs are
private property. Obscene books and prints
are private property. The implements Of
gambling and counterfeiting are private
property. Yet all these are notoriously de-
stroyed, without the least regard to the sa-
cri6ce." Es.5 a nH.
\ Destroyed because the good of the
community demands the sacrifice. A
law. then. which prohibits the traffic
\ in Intoxicating drinks, and which
II should authorise the destruction Of
Il those liquors. unless the traffic was
i abandoned, involves no new principle
4 of legislation !; hence, it is not unrea-
sonable to regard all thatis urged re-
specting the interference of this law
with the rights Of private property as
mere idle clamor, I.Yi aa# aa
Another objection to a law which
should prohibit all traffic in intoxica-
| ting drinks, is, r a s.5ag4
2. u Would restrain personal liberty;
or, interfere with those rights to
which we are entitled in land Of
freedom. The vender claims that the
purchaser voluntarily parts with his
money for what he deems an equiva-
lent, and, therefore, he insists that il
is unjust and tyranical to pass law
d to prohibit them from making any
bargain they choose, or from doing
what they will with their own. BY
this the vender does not mean to as
'Ilsert that his business is morally good,
IFbut that the law has no right to inter-
fere in such cases. All such interfe-
renee, he contends, is depriying indi-
viduals Of their personal liberty.
i. The injuries inflicted on mankind,
are Of two classes--those which are
inflicted by fraud or violence, anC
those which. are inflicted by taking
advantage of the weakness or wicked
ness Of the party who receives the in
r jury. To prevent the first class of in
| luries, the right Of society to Iegislat
| has never been called in question:
: With regard to the second, if you hav
not right to pass law to prevent a
5 injury when the consent of the partie
r is given, then large portion Of ou
? legislation has been unjust. Its onl
| on this principle that laws can b
: passed against the sale of poison, 9
. against dueling, or the sale Of lotter
( tickets, or horse racing, or gambling
Q in every form, or against selling tain
!, ed meat, or keeping houses Of il
S fame. In all such cases, it is nC
/, merely the rights and interests
S those who give their consent, that al
S involved. The injury extends furtht
Il and wider; and this is the reaso
S why you have a right to prohibit th
q class of injuries by law. In the ca
= of intemperance. it is the rights an
v interests of husbands and wives,
i parents and children, and even Il
best interests Of community that a
f inyoIyed-and these rights and inte
IS ests are among the most preciol
Il that'fbelong to humanity. It is n
e enough, therefore, that the vender C
plead that voluntary contract w
.n HI ooaJa hatmaan him and the huyer