Polynesian., 1854-04-01
CHE 1Dolpnesian.



The bold measure of suppressing by law the sale
of alcoholic liquors, which has already been adopt
ed in Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode ISL
and, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington City, and
in many other towns and counties in our country,
is without doubt, of the greatest philanthropc
movements OF our age; yet. it is one which excites
much apprehension even in the minds of benevolent
men. The establishment of any sumptuary law,
regulating what the people shall eat and drink, ap-
pears at the first blush act of tyranny, to which
it will be difficult to submit Nothing is clearer in
the philosophy of liberty, than the absolute right
possessed by every individual to act according to
his owR incinations and comfort in all matters
which concern himself alone, and do not disturb
the peace and happiness of his neighbor. When
asserting and maintaining this right, cannot fail
to discover that it is sometimes violated in Ameri
can legislation, and the Maine Law appears to be
a gross violation of its spirit. Hence, those who
love liberty, especially for themselves, may be ex-
pected in many cases to oppose such law, and the
contest between its friends and opponents in Con-
necticut, New York, Ohio, and many other states,
will be close, animated and jealous.
Those who think merely of human rights, and
especially their own, without reference to any
great beneficial ends, will be jealous opponents of
law which requires them to sacrifice so much OF
a right connected with pleasant indulgence. And
indeed if it be considered solely from their point of
bitrary violation of private rights, we cannot avoid
condemning it. But in the operations of society,
the greatest good to the greatest number being the
leading aim, claimants of individual rights and IL
berty must sometimes be oyerruled-for the gov
ernmenta operations of society are based upon the
sacrifice of individual rights-and the practical
question arising in all cases. is, whether such
rifces of individual rights will be productive Of
adequate public good, and what amount of public
interest will Justify farther encroachments upon the
reserved rights of individuals?
To assume that individual rights are intangible
and must not be yielded in any case, is to parayze
all governmental action and reduce us to the con-
dition of disorganized barbarism. But in such a
condition of barbarism, the rights of each ndividu
al are continually violated by the lawless impulses
of the unprncipled and he is liable to greater in
juries and oppression from unprincped men, who
are always abundant than he would suffer from any
form of organized government. Hence, to protect
our rights to life, liberty and the pursuits of happ-
ness, all are willing to surrender portion OF their
rights to organize government, IN order to pre-
serve the remainder in security. So great are the
evils arising from the vicious passions OF mankind,
that we cheerfully surrender political liberty, even
to such despotism as that of Russia cor Austria,
rather than submit to the worst form OF despotlsm-
that of mobs thieves, and fel0ns.
The great problem of the age, to which America
is working cut the practical solution, hes IN The
question, what the smallest amount OF liberty to
be surrendered by the individual, which will pro-
cure an adequate protection of his rights? In a
state of universal profigacy and reckessness, a
strong government becomes necessary, and liberty
is impossible But in proportion as the moral sense
of the community becomes less and less necessary
until, wher each man becomes law unto himself,
government to exist, since there IS no occa-
sion for its action.
At the present time, we have arrived at one Of
81 thac Of
lem: the question whether we shall permit the
government to restrain, by law, the sale and con-
sumption of alcoholic beverages.
If it could be clearly established, that the aco-
hoc liquors are essentially and in all cases poison
Gus in their action, the question would be consider
ably simplifed. Considering the large number ol
youthful depraved, imbecile or profiigate persons
IN society, over whom we are bound to exercise a
guardian care, and for whose maintenance we are
responsible, there can be no doubt that we have a
right to protect such individuals from the danger to
which they are exposed in the constant temptation
from the sale of poisonous and demoralizng liquors
which render their consumer incapable of support
burdensome and dangerous to society.
But these demoralzing liquids are also largely
consumed by the respectable, responsible, and IN
telligent voters, who make the laws, and who have
no desire to be subjected to legal guardianship
| Yet, would it not be ungenerous and unjust, II
the more trustworthy members OF society, to IN
terpose their own privileges to prevent the act o.
Legislation which is necessary to protect the inter
ests of the community? When we know how large
number OF besotted drunkards are incapable o.
choosing for themselves, and still more incapable
| of maintaining virtuous resolution-when we CON
slder how large number of minors need protec
ton against the snares of the grog-shop-hoW
large a number of unpunished scoundrels use alco
holic drinks to assist in misleading the young ant
imposing on their victims-how large number o
paupers have been rendered a tax to the communi
ty by the destructive influence of grog-shops, ant
how many outrages against life and property ar
due to the same cause, we cannot hesitate TO admi
that society has right to protect its weaker mem
bers from such injuries, and to protect itself iron
the continual oppression and wrong which 1t SUI
fers from this source.
II is true. that the laws necessary for such pro
lection restrain the whole community alike YET
is this sufficient objection to their passage ma
any one a right to place individual comfort ant
convenience as barrier to the prevention OF crim
land the salvation of life? When the public vel
flare. for example. demands direct road betweel
two cities. are the farmers who have occupied AM
cultivated the intermediate land, allowed to pre-
vent its passage, because it breaks up their held
and gardens5 No. on the contrary, fields an
gardens, fences and houses, must be sacrlhced {
jpermit the construction of the road. Individual
occasionally rebel, supposing that the pubic goo
Ought to yield to private interest and even
1.-The surveyors with death. But public good an
public law prevail over private interest and privat
deposition IT, when railroad track has been onii
liz should be found tnat animals, children and indIs
creet persons are liable to loss Of life by wandern
upon the track, no one would object to fencing !
Inn for their protection even though restrained HI
own freedom Of locomotion. The right OF ownn !,
dogs and giving them free locomotion on the pup
lie highway, is one of the rights which our law
seldom disturb i: vet. whenever there is believed
be danger from hydrophobia, there IS no hesitatlo
in compelling every proprietor of dog to keep tn
. animal confined on his own premises, under IN
penalty of death if found running at large. LIVER