Spirit of the age. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1849-1865, 1855-03-14
O. m limitations.
FOR TIE SPIRIT OF THE AGE.
Letter No. q

FOR TEE SPIRIT OF THE AGE.
Letter No. 2.
To MEssRs. JESSE A. WAUGH AND OTHERS
l come now to discuss the grave question
which you put, and which was so wanting
in respect as to laugh at in my first letter to
you, to wit: Has The Legislature the power
to pass a law to prevent or punish an evil
which, it is admitted is running society Pr
l have an argument which / think you can
appreciate. 1t is the same by which the
huntsman proved his dog to be good for
coons. Every dog is good for something.
My dog is good for nothing else therefore
he must be good for coons." The case is
made ont. Now for my argument: "The
Legislature has some power it has no power
to do any thing else than to legislate for the
good of society therefore it has the power to
is running society" The case is made
out. But it may be that, being SO high on
stills as YOU must have climbed to write that
4" Report" you will not be content with the
huntsman's logic therefore | will consider
the question as gravely as you may desire.
AS there are eleven of you, l I'm under
no obligation to give you any advantage in
the argument. But feel my strength. 1
do not fear the contest. My rod is in pickle.
| desire to let you exhibit IL your own dress.
pfry your own antrcs-se'eee yoGt 4 Tes-
pons-eleven Of them-and then you shall
have the first blow and fair play. In your
4th paragraph, you say in answer to the
question:
9Th committee with all due respect for the
memorialists, think not, for the following reasons"
Now as for your respect for the memo
~rialists," l shall have enough to say when I
come to your last paragraph but one. Ipro-
coed to notice your reasons" You say in
your 9Th paragraph:
"Morally and physically, man is a free agent,
and any law which seeks to control his volition, is
an insult offered to his dignity and his understand
ing"
Now this is morally and physically false.
If such a dogma was ever uttered before, it
was by one at a time, and never by eleUen.-
If there is any sense in your big words, it is
this: Man, whether as a member of society
or in his natural state, has the right to do as
he pleases.' Now the truth is, no man,
whether as a member of society or in his
natural state, has the right to do as he pleas
es, unless he pleases to do right. In a state
of nature, a stronger than he may prevent
MN CO a III VI SOGiCtfs OOCICUS may
prevent him. But the Illustrations you give,
to prove your proposition, are singularly un.
fortunate. You say "a man may write,
speak and publish his sentiments upon all
subjects with impunity.' Now there is not
only not one word of truth in this, as a naked
proposition, but you-the whole eleven o
you'll presume-voted in the last Legisla,
ture for a law to punish a man with impris
onment, whipping, pillory, and death, fol
either writing, speaking or publishing hi
sentiments. Let me refer you to page 1874
Secs. II and Is of the Revised Statutes ant
presume the same is incorporated in th'
New Revisal, by your votes.
But | see that you add the following:-
Being responsible for the abuse of tina
right Responsible to whom?-to what
70 the law? Have you not said that an,
law which controlled HIM, was an insult tC
his dignity? This shows the force an,
beauty of your argument. 1t is not lik
other arguments which l have heard which
passed for masterpieces. They took tn
right side and then brought all power to bea
on that side, leaving the enemy no quarter
But yours takes the wrong side, and onl
keeps to itself the trash and froth, and give
to my side the worth and power of the argu
ment. Your proposition was, that a ma
had the right to do as he pleases, and it is a
insult to restrain him. My proposition ii
that no man has the right to do as he please
unless he pleases to do right, and he may /
restrained. Now, in your argument, 20
say he is responsible if he does wrong
Does that argument support your propos
ton or mine? The question remains:
a man responsible for what he speaks? Ye
if he speaks wrong. For what he writes ?
nnhlohoS2 Voo if ho xrritoo oDd nnh1;ob,
wrong. Is he responsible, or can you punis
him for his traffic ? Yes, if he traffic in an
thing that is wrong-especially if it be II
nous to society For any thing, therefor
that appears in these reasons Think tt
committee ought not to have thought that Il
Legislature had no power to pass a law
prohibit the traffic in ardent spirits.
But the constitution ah, the constitution
l thought you would show some great thin
In the constitutions. But how We are lab
to be mistaken! | nm not the first seek
after help and knowledge, that has found q
that ought to have been desired, but in
n very different from what was expe
ted. Naaman's case is a notable instanc
he expected some imposing speech or Ger
mony and power. But the whole power
the miracle was in the simple Injunction,
wash and be Clean But here is a case
less noticeable. / was expecting page, ar
Gle and section to be quoted, with such e
plantations and expoundings as would ha
left no doubt. But the whole power a.
spirit of the difficulty is found in the mode
and unassuming announcement-'they thi
not One ought to be careful of though
There was an instance where a boy "
worsted by them. But to proceed with 70
reasons In the 9th paragraph you sa
"The right of eating and drinking whatever
appetite Graves, is one every man holds dear, a
will never surrender without a struggle"
Now, gentlemen, it may be that this pa
graph does not of right belong to the Repo
1t may have got there by chance. 1t m
be that it got there after this manner Tn,
was a good deal of complaint among
Members Of the Legislature, as understal
} that their fare in Raleigh was not such
their 'appetites craved : and still what tn
did get was very dear and it was stcu
S maintained by many that they had the rig
to have such things as their 'appeti
craved,' and that it was only such THU
r that ought to be held so dear, and tt
9 threatened that at the next Legislature ii
would have such things as their appel
craved,' or they would have "a Struggle.
And it may be that in hunger, or in thu
that paragraph was written. Now, I tn
that this was all well enough to scare y
stingy landlords with, but it is out of pl
in your Report, and is naaseous to the p
: lie taste, in discussing a grave constitutio
question.
o l will not discuss with you the child
: question-whether a man has the right
eat and drink That is not your prop