Smyrna times., 1855-03-28
Written for the Smyrna Times.
The Delaware State Reporters Edito

of'"ONE OF THE DEAR People" on an editorial
of the Reporter under the caption of "The
Maine Law" which appeared in that paper of
the ID inst BY your permission, sir, will
offer some comments on our editoral"--
Whatever may be its merits as to quality, there
is surely no ground of complaint as to quantity.
The Reporter has given good measure this time;
! perhaps, the Editor felt that he must make up
in length all that it lacked in sound logical
argument" He says he has felt it to be not
oaly privilege, but a duty to express his views
of ProhbtOry Law. This privilege freely
grant him, and, in return, claim it as my privi.
lege and my duty to comment Oil his editorials
| lie had concluded, after the law was enact.
ed, "to leave it to every person to determine
by his own experience and observation whether
what he had said of its consequences would not
prove true" Ills editorial of the 81, WIS
That was "leaving it to every person to deter
mine by his own experience and observation "
"with vengeance" But the great sin of
g one of the dear people consisted in saying
that the Reporters editorial dealt in rant and
ldl" defamation, without an approach towards
sound logical argument" and he very modestly
admits, that he makes no pretensiOn to logical
argument, but simply claims Is to state facts,
fairly and impartially." Very strange notions
has the Editor of the Reporter of fairness and
tmpartialIty! He takes the 6,OO0 voters who
! Petltloned the Legislature for a Prohbtory
Law, and instead Of comparing them with the
voters in the State, compares them with all the
men, and women, and children, and negroes, in
the State, and then prates about stating facts
fairly and impartiaHy!
| The Reporter persists in calling a law en-
acted by the Legislature of Delaware, a law
Of the State of Maine" and proves it, too, by
an invocation to the shades Of Locke and Reid,
of Brown and Bacon, of Aristotle and Hudlbras /!
Surely, no one will longer doubt his ability to
use " sound logical argument!
He finds great fault with my want of faith in
his assertion that 1.-THE sensation created unon
its passage here was one of almost universal
condemnation" That those in favor of the
sale and use of these drinks, through interest
very well know; but opine that the Repor-
ter will find that this falls very far short of
"uniuersal condemnation AS to the law
being arbitrary and rigorous, (yes, Mr.. Repor-
ter, it was rigorous,) feel perfectly willing to
leave the decision of that question to the nm
pire which the Reporter has selected-fully
agreeing with it, that the people are as compe.
tent to decide that matter as the Reporter or
One o. the Dear People.
In answer to the challenge to bring a sin.
gle argument against law prohibiting the sale
of intoxicating drinks as beverage, that will
not apply with much greater force agains,
gambling houses" &c, the Reporter says,
have not the merit of originality. Well, a.
i the Reporter contesses that it ina kes no preten
sons to illogical argument" will be equally
honest, and confess that make no pretenson,
s to originality" But, stale, threadbare. anc
a old, as this challenge is, it is not more so thar
S his challenge TO prove that law should be en-
acted "ProhibItng the sale of guns, pistols
n dirks, sword-canes, &c. | answer that d,
0 not advocate law prohibiting their sale, be
: cause they very rarely become a source o
injury to any one, and when they do they are
generally in the hands of men excited and mad
dened by intoxicating drinks. rather prefer
to remove that which makes guns pistols anc
dirks dangerous. ! have no fears of them II
the hands of sober men. Whenever evils re-
i sutlng from the sale Of these articles shal be
come so widespread and ruinous in their effects
as the evils that have resulted from the sale o
intoxicating drinks, then | sha III be found adyo
eating such law. Ihold that the Legislature
should exercise sound Judgment and couImor
sense IN placing restrictions upon the action,
OF the people, and that they would IA il to do Sc
e If they did not legslate against the sale of in
toxlcating drinks. But the Reporter does con
descend to answer the challenge, and show il
: what respect law prohibiting the nuisance.
B. named does not apply at all to the prob btior
B. OF the sale of intoxicating liquor and here j.
the beautiful specimen of mis- logic" ant
"originality." | will quote him entire, ever
at the risk OF getting mp four columns too.-
Hear him:
e 1--WE lay it down as an incontrovertibIe nro
i position, that all act in Itself rot either moraIl,
O or clvIlly wrong cannot be prohibited by lepls
atlon without an unjustihable encroacbmen
upon the natural rights of man, nd that ,ht
mere act of selling intoxicating liquor is not
IN itself, either morally Or cvlly wrong. Car
Q any person say that the sale Of It is wrong he
cause 1t is liable to abuse, aud yet contend tina
y the sale of arsenic, strIchnine or Corrosive sinh
: Innate is right! And where can the person b,
n found who will say that the sale of these article
a is wrong, or that they are not liable 10 abnse O
n the grossest kind, and of the most fatal conse
quences! But the nnisanccs referred to,whicI
are prohibited by law, are not liable to be abused
only; they are both morally and ciyilIy wrono
in themselves-in the very act that constitutes
their existence