Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1857-09-05

Diy connected. llGncc VIC would remark with
due respect for your opinion tl:at VIC do not
think the Constitutonality of q coorcive law
is as difficult OF solution as you imagine
tits quito obvious to our mind that as our
Constitution and laws arc based upon the
principles of ofiusticc, as all laws should DO
stand upon this basis consequently, if any
man or class OF men arc engaged in any pur-
suit which. conflicts with the principles of JUS
tico, it is certain that coercion is indispcnsa-
bly, necessary, andit follows as u matter of
course, that it is Constitutional. Hence we
conclude that the only question to be solved
to ascertain whether cocrcivc law is neces-
sary or unncccssary-C Constitutional or I'M
consttutional-ist to examine and scewhether or
not the liquor traffic as conducted in the State
of South Carolina conflicts with, or violates
the principles ofiustice; whether or not this
traffic iniurcS the general interest of thcpeo-
pie of the State whcthcr or not the pursuit
or occupation in which those persons are en-
gagged who carry on this traffic cndangcrs the
peoples safety, welfare and happiness, Now,
sir, it scarcely requires more than a bare as
sertion to srtbstantiatc all this in the afIirma-
tive. 1t is self evident to the most casual OBJ
server Of common intelligence, that every man
in the State of South Carolina is injured, eth
CIR directly or indirectly 10 Il greater or less
extcnt by the liquor traffic, and that in
pecuniary point of view. Consequently, it
would only be a work of supcrerogation for
us to prove what has been proved, times al
most innumcrablc and what is so apparent
that it proves itself.
But we hear %rcat deal said about mans
rights, his personal rights, his natural rights,
&o. What are we to understand from all this.
Docs itimply thata man has an unlimited
right to do whatever secmotll good in his own
eye3. This would be true so far rs Justice
botwoen man and man is concerned were
there but one man in the State, but in state
of soccty--in n civil Governmental is diff
icrent, consequently he has no right to do
what will iniure others. Therefore. We con-
clude that this can only mean that man has
n personal right to do whatever he plcases,
provided it does not iniure any one else; for,
were he allowed to pursue u course or follow.
an occupation which would iniurc his neigh
bors person or property, so far as the strik-
ing on the check or the taking of ono cent,
then would it follow by the samo rule that
he had right to takehiS life or all his prop
crty were it of the value of tens of thousands
of dollars.
But happily this is not the character of our
Government. 1t based upon the principles
of Justice Our Constitution and laws are re-
strictiVe and prohbitory in their nature
The design OF these laws is to protect the
just by restraining the unjust; for were all
men just, aud could not be influenced to act
unjustly, there would be no need Of cithcr
Constitution or laws-cvery man would be a
law unto himself
NJ ~ q Al, 4
his victindzod coadjutors is, our fathers fought
for and gained free trade and sailors rights.
Y cry we'll This is q most glorious doctrine,
the very palladium of our Republican insti-
tutions. But this is quite novel intcrprc-
tation Of the doctrine of free trade indeed
that a, B and G can have or ra'hcr purchase
tho right to make war upon every interest of
the rest of tho alphabet upon both their per-
sons and propcrty--n right to SOW the seeds
ofwidowhood and orphanagc; of vice and in
dolenco of crime and paupcrism ; of sorrow
and pain of sickness and death, together
with every other evil known to mankind. Is
this what you call free trade 1t is what ,ce
call free trade with perfect vengance--free
tyranny, if you please. No, sirs. This is
not u correct definitonof what we understand
froc trade to be. Our forefathors wadcd thro'
hcbloot of a scyon years war and gained the
privilege of onocting laws to. protect thom-
selves against just such injustice as this
against just such tyrannical claims as you set
up. s1~,
But, by-tho-by, IS ardent spirits an article
of Free Trade in the true sense of the phrase.
HitIs our legislature has never regarded it
as sIch-~she has nevor classed it under the
head ofnrticlc of Free Trade IIastherc ever
boon artime during our existence as a State
that thcro bas not boon rvstriotionstu ~ some
extent upon the sale of this article. Has not
our legislature, time after time, from the ear
hcst existence of tho State until tho present
day, been in tho habit of passing prohibitory
liquor laws Have not our sage legislators
been in'tho constaut,habit of exercising the
prerogative ofcommisSioning q certain num-
.ber Of persons by their paying certain stip-
ulated sum as kind of indemnifcation a.
goinst tho evils which they foresaw would re-
suit from the business. Call you this free.
trade2 If this be FREQ trade, why buytho
right TO sell. Free Trade, indeed Docs not
this. demonstrate most clearly and unequiy0-
.6ally the GonsttuHoHality of a coepeye law?,
Most certainly il does Does itnot prove that
the legislature of South, Carolina has always
looked upon the trafiicin ardent spirits as dos
ms violence to thepfinciplos of justice-ils
intlicting an injury upon the State2 Unques-
tionably it,does. For mark you, if tho legis-
lature has the right to take one cent cut Of
the hundred 10y the same principle she has
the right to take the other ninetysliino. If
she has the oright to restrict the disti!ler in
the sale Of his whisloy to selling nothing
less than quart, then by the Same prinoi-
pie she has tho right to prohibit him from
selling any Rtnll, Hshe has the right ofox-
acting fifty doilnrs off,of the retailer ofafdent
spirits, tlton Icy tho sduo principles she has
the rghS to take all he may make by the tfaf.
tiics Aud consequoStly, If she has the right