Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1854-02-07
TcR rur WHO.
Main. Law |. virginia.


nom tho London Times "The grca, thunderer
printing square, nsyou are pleased to call It, And perm
me In tho hrs place say that being heartily devoted
great moral reform of the age the temperance rerr
and having had a. thought good to believe tbs
"ese Tar from GEOGRAPHICALLY Its aims and prospec,
was somewhat scrprsed and mortified, to find that 70
nad selected an article for publication In your paper
article Is
Inc proiessed object Of the article would seem be
70 urge objections pactcabty of tho law In Eng
anu out lis much more obvious scope d H. to briu,
.n,o Huenie dsparageuent and contempt the who'll
seneme OF tue temperance reform any and every ~
Tho writer ia well aware that this press has Il repua
uon OF oe,ng very able press and its information
on general politics, or tho general condition of the affair
VI nauons perhaps there Is so, il may b,
without rival But It is given to even tho wiscs, ant
ne greatest to be always aud all points-and Ia Thu
instance sns wise Editor or whoever, he who til,
su'hor OF this miserable esion on the tempe, ance re-
'or:n, has Very likely exhibited ono Of his weakes
points.
To be able to discant tho principles of political
uo"!, INC diplomacy OF nations the marching aud coun
OF armies the results of cody battles &c
toa writer whose whole time and attention are devoted
osuen topics, may DO one thing but for the ndi-
Nuua to undertake 70 discourse the ethics Of grcs,
temperance or moral reform; show its tendencies
bearings ana probable resus-without having ever be
lore given TO tho subject perhaps moments consdcra
uon anu 'ha TOO, while euveoped in the fumes of Beer
or with senses stepped the ms and fogs OF the gror
shops OF snsh city as the British Metropolis is quite
another thing.
1t not the purpose OF the writer to enter into anv So
rous reua'ion OF the views contained in the article in
qnesonor TO attempt epel any length the wanton
ness OF the attack upon the temperance reform.
to be assaulted with ridiculc srofTs ~ % nappe"'
but the idols playthiugs Of the light aud
attack with silent co,,c,, ~, S'e'eh' 70 'res' inc
in this article which Arrested ,h Is QUO sen'ene'
which is Indeed SO ultra or cxtr,ni, T.; ~ ~; w..
TER mat ne cannot sufer to pass without effort
1 hrnp twill fk. Inf. al
sentence is this at IL the ip,cn,h s;s., 80, r. i.o
Brton to make a dog or N bcas, or L;n,.sii , -
he pleases so that he does mn, d;r,i 80 ~ .. rs
saf,tr comfort and neral, Of otbs,s W., 80 ,I W;
| ter hay. meant by such 4. s.n,.nc. ~ 'h;S w. VI.
could he have meant INV tbo ,.,,, LII, - VIA" W
IL man in civlised social and refined comrnn,v
make himself or to ac, Ik, , 40, ar ho,s, H.
certainly might do So in a manner 10 ssS ,h H., y, ~
greatly to offend against public dccency. and would m "
be nothusy l. the contapion of evil s,,n, T.; ,ha s
timation Of this wise writer uothinpP D,.s h, ,r., d,
cay that Sabbath breaking drupk,Sncs, csnb,;n "a
other unnGmabie vices however nubIcly o. T.; & L.
committed practscd ore not rcs,r,inahl. vccsnie
perperated in a manner so as IN ,Y;r,.,I ;,,,t 81
the safety comfort aud morals of others hut oniy ;,
IL interfere as by example, Or what css dos 10 o,n
But after all il may perhaps b., s,id ,bs, !, \; na,
an ambiguity and that the wr;t,r All M, -, -.
sente. ce should be understood In moan what II . Ill 80
its face import; but So IL IL to saw Nh. I,, -,
it. an oiious ambiguity; and the writer who conI o,
such blunder ought regarded as fotecosed as IN
all grave, moral subjects forever thereafter
You will also please Messr, Editors Will. ., ,L;,
subject OF temperance reform permit me- IN mako , %
gle remark two on an article on the same snh;sc,
which appeared in the November issue as bcevsdS o
the Southern Planter over the signature oS Jesso
grave Esd OF Sussex county in which IN. w;,sr =; ,ho
first place. takes the novel cropnI that tho
interest will be inuriously affected by tho
FORM or Maine Law in ca,e Il s6ouIj srcneoj TT
the manufacture and sale of alcoholic opor or ,b,, or
brandy especially Yields large reycnu. In cc,,,;,
ties which he names which, 10 that event would he Ont
Off or lost the agricultural interest It's TO he von
dered why he did not include in the same 10;
order swell his aggregate of dollar, and eti Tho
revenue arising from the manufacture of old bald face
too, and the profits accruing to all the louor vende,
Ihroug hout the State and the revenue arsp, n r.
Government from licenses to such vendors in orer r.,
carry his reasoning But Mr. Har,raye has eyden,i
taken sided view Of the question and ,Io sc;Jod
~ the wrong side He treats IL as a oues,o, or -
dollars and cents irrespective of the rea, moral
which involves and therefore his views or
do not meet the question: all. II he had placed his
brandy in the scale and the immense
OF moral deprivation and misery which tho br,ndr
tends inevitably to produce in the other and Iben bv
noticed the preponderance of the balance beam he per
haps, might have Appropriated the truth His loyic
therefore. will bear count, Again he insists n
feature of the liquor law which provides Thai the Iiono
kept for sale, in violation of the law should be DESTROYED
would be unconstitutional provision and tbersiorc
void. The Constitution the United States he s,vs do
cares THAT person shall be deprived of life liberty
property without due process of law" He then as
that the Flaw Of destruction" az he calls IL wonld
be unconstitutional law, without single argument in
proof OF it, aud says there could be no due process of
under unconstitutional law which il void M. Iocc
here, f any thing is at fault than il was under bs
agricultural head lie should have rccolected that In
many instances property nay eren life and liberty nav
he forfeited from d.obedence the requirements OF law
and that to property, when its owner makes wrong
iu or perverted use Of il, whereby il is made public
nuisance that may be forfeited the public also and
thus become public property and DESTROYED as such 10
prevent the nuisance. What would Mr. Uargrave saw
the 'law Of destruction applicable to sheen killing
dogs, which become uusances in the neghborhood and
may therefore DO destroyo1'
If Mr.. nargrave had applied to the worthy Edto, Of
the Southern Planter he would no doubt have said 10
him, that the law OF destruction applicable to sheen
killing dogs, not only constitutional but very sal
utary law for to the writer's certain knowledge he has
often been compelled to avail of il for the protec
ton OF his own iocks This "aw Of destruction how
ever, in the estimation OF Mr. Ilargave may be all right
to sheepkng dogs aud other instances and yet the
brandy although destroy one hundred or nerb,ns
thousand human lives wherc the dog DESTROYS The
life OF sheep, to be ded perfectly harmless
innocent and sacred, because Of the dollars and
which are at stake IL Mr. Hargrave had shown thai
the labor employed in the production Of the brandy couI
be otherwise proaby employed and that starvation
such aborers would have been tho probable or ncvi
table result he then would certainly have made on, a
hard case and hs argument might have been IN
some weight. Tho writer will add that he woulJ mt
have troubled you with these remarks Messrs Editors