East Saginaw courier., 1866-08-16
EAST SAGINAW, MICH. THURSDAY. AUGUST 49, 1866.

shSb, ~ iOSioiatioh uSdiuSJ iuA VI
J and extravaganza. The right 1
control the individual says our latel
and best historian, not only for hi
neighbor's protection but for his ow
improvement, was law after the un
versal traditions of Christendom.' >
Such right was least of all likely
be questioned by our Puritan father,
who held themselves sacredly boun
to carry out their ideas of a Christia
state in the smallest as well as tn
greatest things. They were, in thei
own eyes, the constituted guardians Q
the purity of Christian faith an,
morals in the new Colony and the,
made it matter Of conscience alik
to exhibit the wearing Of 'bone
lace and to drive out from thei
boundaries such pestilent heretics a
Quakers and Anabaptists. TO then
this legislation was no usurpation, ant
intolerance was rather virtue thar
a vice. In fact, their great mistak,
may be said to have been that the,
made no distinction Jet,oecn SIN and
crime. An offence against the laws O
God was for that reason an offence
against the laws of men. 1t was 6
crime to disregard the Sabbath in any
way, to deny the authority Of any
part of Scripture, to call in question
the truth of Christianity, or even to
dispute the doctrine Of the Trinity
What wonder, then, that with these
notions of the province of Legislation
they proceeded early to enact many
laws against sumptuous food and
drink and costly apparel"
1t is well described how the Puri-
tan zealots undertook to prohibit "the
common custom Of drinking one to
another, as mere useless ceremony,
and drawing on that aboninable prac-
tice of drinking healths )" the plant
ing and sale of tobacco, and the use
of it publicly under the penalty of
Is. Cd, nor privately in his own house
or in the house of another before stran-
gers. and that two or more shall not
take it together anywhere, under the
aforesaid penalty for every offence !"
excess and bravery in apparel !"
grave Legislators passing judgment on
an extra "slash," or a needless gar
niture of "lace !" selectmen fining
anybody whom they judged "to ex-
coed their rank and ability in the
costliness or fashion of their apparel
in any respect" and courts compelling
men and women to answer before
them for wearing new fashions or
long hair, or anything Of the like ma
ture," immoderate great sleeves, i'm
moderate great veils," "G any man
shall judye them to be maeomely or prgtt-
dicidt TO the common good"
Mr.. Greeley and his Excise law CO.
adjutors, if they don't know where
they are going to, may here see where
hundred years ago, no person was "to
drink or tipple at unreasonable times
in houses of entertainment" the Gun
seasonable times being after 0 p. m.
We have fallen off till II m, loss
of three hours, which, doubtless, they
will do their best to recover.
OF course, the vice to which the
Puritans were peculiarly addicted,
"because it was their only recreation"
though expelled by the door came in
at the windows, and the law Of the
last two decades, like those of the last
two centuries, have only published the
folly Of the lawmakers.
The North Amerfcdn, in conclusion,
lays the stress of its argument against
all this sort Of legislation, which the
Tribune is so enlightened as to defend,
in the fact that it virtually dictates
to private individuals concerning their
personal tastes and expenses"
"Mr. Mill very properly says: "the
State might just as well forbid him
(the buyer and consumer) to drink
wine, as purposely to make it impossi-
bic for him to obtain it. Indeed, it
seems to us scarcely to admit of q
doubt that man ofy the advocates of
this law, if allowed to pursue its logi-
cal inference, would not hesitate to
complete their purpose by making all
use of intoxicating drinks (except
medicine and in the arts) criminal
That would unquestionably be more
thor ugh than any previous legislation;
and it would be perfectly consistent
with the principle of prohibition; but
one could hardly deny that this was
sumptuary law. The right to eat and
drink and wear what we shall think
best for himself is surely one of the
most obvious rights Of human be-
ing, qualified only by the demands OF
common honesty and decorum. Nei-
ther the community, through the ex-
preston of public opinion, nor the
State, by the enactment of law, is au-
thorized to take away that right. But
has not the State, the community, q
right to protect itself against the fear
full consequences which intemperance
draws in its train? An does not in.
temperance, though an individual sin
ins its origin, produce an inculculable
amount of social misery? We answer
both questions i'll the affirmative, and
yet we emphatically deny that the
State may resort las is implied) to
those methods of protection which are
believed to be most efficient, that is,
most expeditions. 1t might be the
most efficient way of destroying heresy
TO put all the heretics to death;
but the spirit Of the age inclines to a
somewhat more humane process. We
might think to prevent all the dangers
of "a little knowledge by burning
every book we could lay our hands
on: but prejudice would still remain
in favor of everybody's meeting these
dangers for himself. The State may
protect itself and its citizens against
flagrant acts Of violence, injustice and
disorder; but it may not therefore
punish those private habits or indul.
gences which sometimes lead to vio-
lence. Drmkenness Is a san, but IS moi