Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1853-06-15
For The Spectator.

Inc License LAVAL.
! .hessrs Editors Now that the elections are
over, and no danger of misrepresentation as to the
motives of the writer or the bearing Of the discus
sion can exist, the attention of your readers IS in
vlled to the consideration of subject, which IS at
present, ellciting good deal of attention in vari-
Gus portions OF our State, aud has recently been
brought to the notice of the people of this county,
IN very prominent manner The propriety and
Legality OF refusing License to retail ardent spirits
and other intoxicating liquors for indiscrmlnate
use, has been extensively discussed In many conIl-
ties of our State, during the last month"; both prl-
vatey and. publicly. The abstract question of the
right of the County Court to refuse all appllca-
tlons for License, was put to the vote IN Rock
ingham and decided in the negative, by majority
of'one in Court of twenty-five. In our own
county, the first application was granted by ma
fjority of only two votes, out Of twenty-seyen.--
In this case, it was supposed, that refusal would
have been followed by refusal of all other appii-
cants. In some counties, all applicants have been
refused. In others, the Court has predetermined
to grant no Licenses whatever. BY some, the
right of the Court to do this, is earnestly adyoca-
ted. Others, who hold that the Court may refuse
each application on its merits, deny that 1t can
predetermine to grant none whatever. Lawyers
differ in their opinions Some who are accused OF
being ''intempefately temperate" teach that the
Court has an unlimited discretion in the premises.
Others, who may as properly be termed radical
ly conservative" tell us that the Court is bound
o'license all who can prove fair characters and
to whom no objection can be made.
1t is very evident that the subject is one OF
growing interest, and certainly few are more In
timately connected with the interests of the COM
munity. The evils of intemperance are admitted
on all hands, and good citizens of all opinions are
very much concerned to discover some mode by
which they may be arrested and, if possible, ultl-
matey suppressed.
For the present, our attention may first be in
vited to the consderatonof the erpediency of sup
pressing the retail traffic in liquor, by refusal to
license merchants and others to engage in the bu-
siness. lis very earnestly commended, that had
the Court clear right to refuse every applicant,
the exercise Of that right would be improper and
inexpedient.
! l.. We are told that the refusal to license the
traffic will not suppress it. No onesupposes that
it will But if the traffic is placed on the same
footing with other employments, towhich the law
extends its notice, something may be Effected
Would it be sound reason for the law 10 license
gambling halls and baudy-houses, that refusal
to license such tempters of the ignorant and I'M
wary has not resulted in their suppression? Men
still violate many other prohibiiory laws OF the
statute. Must we then license all those modes of
corrupting the morals Of the young which the law
now forbids-such as the sale of obscene books,
pictures and prints because our refusal to license
them does not entirely abate the nuisance? Last
fall, our community was in 4 state of great exclte-
ment produced by diabolical outrage committed
| in this vicinity. A committee of vigilance was
appointed to watch the line of the public works
and see that no liquor was sold without license
Was there any evidence that unlicensed liquor had
inspired those men with their wickedness? Is
there any more potency in glass of unlicensed
whskey than in that obtained from shop where
it is sold by law? We hold that whenever legal
protection is withdrawn from the traffic, it must
lose much of that responsibility with whichit is
clothed. Young men and others in whom the
habit of tppling has not been formed, will 60 less
readily to places under the ban of the law, than
to the bar room or store where business is sane
toned by its authority. While then we do not
expect to accomplish every thing, we expect to do
much towards removing temptation. is is not IN
consistent for the State TO encourage the corrup
ton of its citizens and then punish them for theft
Drunkenness? True, the Court cannot entirely
suppress tipping unless it can entirely suppress
desire to drink nor can it suppress any crime,
until it can suppress the desire to commit It. But
it can and it does endeavor to remove temptations
and facilities. 1t discourages betting which leads
to fraud and often violence. 1t fixes penalty on
carrying concealed weapons, to protectits citizens
from crime and its results. All we ask is that the
State will not encourage drinking.
2. But we are next reminded, that refusal TO
license the traffic is an invaron of Right, and 1t
has been boldly ayowed, by successful asplrant
for Legislative honours, that the "Maine ll1uor
law" and all similar legislation, is tyrannical as
subversve of one OF these rights, for the exercise
| of which a man need offer 10 other reason than
that it is his ,eW. Now under our present law 1t
is penal offence 10 engage in this traffic without
special license, and the law prescribes certain
conditions as prerequisite to obtaining such license.
Will il be said that the law thus existing. inyades
this precious Right? and yet this is the concu-
sion forced upon us. For our legislation is SINH
tar to that of Maine, in this, that undertake to
restrain and regulate, what that totally Iorbids,
and if the court refuses license to every app-
cant, then, the cases are more nearly parallel
Indeed no law Tor abatng nuisance as noXious
mill pond, suppressing gambling, the exhibition
of immoral books. prints, &c. for sale, or scenes
of other similar offences; can be executed, without
invading private rights. But it is sound prin-
| ciple of law and common sense, (Which ought to
be identical, if they are not, in their teachings)
that no man has right 10 do prong. A man,
has right to carry concealed weapons, to take
and receive unbankable money and sundry other
things, but entering society he gives up certain
individual rights, for the public good and submits
to restraints and pr;vaons for the comfort of 9TH
ers. 1t would greatly edify the public, to be in
formed how it is, that the right to sell liquor has
reached this high position OF being inalenabe.-
| 1t cannot be because it is one mode of pursuing
happiness, for the gambler can say the same nor
that it is mode of pursuing wealth, for the Lot
terry dealer can say the same. 1t is not neces-
sary means Of subsistence, for the avenues to a
decent support in scores ofother ways are OPEN
But arc there no other rights, except those OF
Liquor dealers? Have wives and children of
wasteful drinking men no rights? Have the law
abiding, order-loving part of the community, who
are disturbed and annoyed by riots and unruly
men, no rights2 Have honest hard working far
mers and mechanics, who are taxed to support
the pauperism and pay for Furnishing the crimes
of drunkenness, no rights? Have masters, whose
slaves are entced TO traffic for liquor with the a.
walls Of depredations on their property, no rights
Have widowed mothers and sisters of young men,
ruined oy these tipping shops, no rights? No
man has a right to do wrong. It is not avowed
that every man, who sells dram does wrong ev-
cry time he sells it. But out of this traffic wrong
doing inevitably grows. The State had not 9TH
erwise attempted to control it. Indeed, if this
claim of right, prove anything, it proyes tcomuch.
II liquor selling be such precious inalienabie
right. that you dare not touch it, how is it that
the State does touch it? why discriminate Z? 1t
is said, because the State determines none shall
1 pursue tue business except honest sober men,
But who has right to say who are honest sober