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

eye was DFiBbb duW hlsa N.ASSA
his character fair or whether ne snouio Ds |
lured on to become drunkard, ana i've ana
die so, would hesitate q moment I las
then such Apparent no rightsE van ne |
have no protection against that whlch Is
worse than assassination to his son That
community ought mott exist which cannot
hold up the protecting shield Of law. when
such rights are attempted to be stabbed by
the hand of crafty selfshness." Il
Or, take another illustration. If |
may not 60 into my neighbor's dwell
ling, and take from his family what
they need for their daily subsistence
and comfort, may ! send that there
which will do itP Is it any unwar-
rantable interference with my personal
liberty, to prohibit me, by law, from
selling that to the father Of that family,
which will be the means Of depriYing
his children Of a comfortable supply
of food and clothing !? assl a 9a
Or, take another illustration. If
vessel were to come into port having
pestilerous goods on board, or individ-
uals sick with a contagious disease,
have you not laws oprevent the land
ing Of those goods or those aindivid-
uals ? And do not all such laws in
terfere with the private rights of the
owners Of that vessel and those goods2
In all such cases, does not society de-
mand that the rights and privileges of
individuals shallbe subordinate to the
public safety and welfare? b9foil.
Another objection to a law which
prohibits all traffic in intoxicating
drinks, as a beverageais, df 0
8. EWoald be unconstitutional. My
hearers, / certainly hope i shall ever
be the humble advocate of all consti-
tutional rights, and wish, in all suit
able ways, to maintain and defend
those right Still, / am readyto ask,
/ ifthe Consultation does not allow, and
even require us to legislate for the
H public good? a m s4a8
'tGovernment substituted for the common
good for the protection, safety, prosperity
and happiness of the people hnd not for
the profit, honor, or private Interest Of any
one man, family or class Of men." afIE
On this broad basis, all prohibitory
laws required by the public good, rest.
Now, l confess to you, my hearers,
there does appear to me about as
much ground for calling in question
the constitutionality of a license law,
as there is for calling In question a
prohibitory law. A prohibitory law
| protects the many in their rights-it
/ guards the interests of the whole com
munity, against the few in theil
wrongs. The license law reverses
this rule, and sets up and protects the
few in sending disease and death ovel
the land, against the good of the
many. 1t legalizes that which il
wrong, and any law which is seen tC
do this, ought to be blotted from tht
statute book. A law to be of any
real value to society, and to receive
the approval of good men, must b,
the guardian of virtue, of peace, o
order, and intelligence, or it fails o
its end. 4aI atgf zt
f But, to come directly to the consti
, tutionality of the lawin question. I
r any proof were needed to place thi
po mt beyond dispute, it may be founC
) in an act of Congress passed in 1918
} entitled "An Act for layi G duties OF
licenses to retailers of wines, sp rit
f uous liquors, and foreign merchan
E dize." This act contains the follow
3 ing provisions: "Pr0videdalwqys, tha
no license shall be granted to any per
s son to sell wines, distilled spirituou
I liquors, or merchandise, wko is pro
q hibited TO sell the same By tie State.
5 Here is sufficient proof that a Stat
f law, prohibiting the traffic in intoxi
e eating drink !, is perfectly compatibl
I with the national constitution. Her
! is angexPress recognition on the pal