The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1867-04-18

The people of the commonwealth have
reason to be as proud of John A. Andrew in
his private as well as his public capacity, Tor
his support of civil rights. His argumens
before the legislative COMMITTEES, on Wednes.
day, the 4th inst, in favor of Pet.tion ier .
license law, as published, is one OF the most
mastery efforts that has ever proceeded rom
Massachusetts iurist. II is iearlea, search
hing, thorough, and convincing, and ieayea no
point exnosed for the attack of its opponents.
II is more than the plea of lawyer. Gov.
Andrew has zone into the contest as an adj
yoo.te of the truth, in law and morals, as he
saes II. and the result is an added confrma-
tom of the legal character of his state. Be-
sides the legality involved, his argument
shows a scientific research that more than
answers the prohibitionists, and proves that
in uprooting the evil contended against they
would destroy many good that justice and
virtue depend upon. Thus, in proving, what
is admitted, that intemperance causes insan-
ity, and that its cause should be removed,
the fact that religious exeitment as intern
peranee, argues that religion should be pro-
ceeded against and prohibited by the same
rule, So was the physiological portion OF
his argument admirably sustained, and its
moral features so presented that his reverend
antagonist was completely vanquished in his
own peculiar province. This argument, so
exhaustive of the subject, is designed for the
country at large as well as the committee be,
fore which it was made. Thousands listen.
ed to it, and the press is bearing it broadcast
over the land, to work, we hope, good in
awaking the people to a sense of their dang
er. They are like slumbering Samson in the
lap of this Dahlah, and need the cry, "the
Philistines be upon thee" to arouse them be
fore every vestige of their liberty is lost
Gov. Andrew deserves praise, besides, fol-
his stand against those with whom he is as
sociated politically, but who have infused
this moral question among the tenets of thei,
party faith to the endangering of human lib,
erty. We cannot do better in closing. than
to quote the following from his argument re
lating to the error of substituting law fol
moral influence in meeting moral ofens
'Do you tell me, however, that all such bever
ages, in their most innocent use, involves a eer-
tain danger; that possibly any one may, proba.
bly, many, and certainly some viii, abuse it, and
thus abuse themselves and that by consequence
all men, as matter of prudence, and therefore o.
duty, ought to abstain from and reject it,
81 answer: That is q question of morals, fol
the answer to which we must resort to the Bible
or TO the CnurCH, OF 10 tue VI
philosophy. The right to answer it at all, or to
pretend to any opinion upon it, binding the citi
zen, has never been committed by the people, in
any free government the earth, to the decision
of the secular power. Iflthe state can pass be-
tween the citizen and his church, his Bible hi:
conscience and God, upon questions of his owr
personal habits, and decide what he shall do, OF
merely moral grounds, then it has authority t
invade the domain of thought, as well as of Pri
vate life, and prescribe bounds to freedom of con
science. There is no barrier, in principle, where
the government must stop, short of the establish
ment of q state church, prescribed by law ana
| maintained by persecution.
"Do you tell me that the using of wine or bee
rs beverage, however temporarily, is of danger
Gus tendency by reason of its example? Do yol
insist that the temperate use of it by maj
may be pleaded by another as the occasion ant
apology for its abuse?
81 answer That if the government restrain
the one man of his own just, rational liberty t
regulate his private conduct and affairs, in mat
not against peace public decorum, good order
nor the personal rights of any, then the govern
ment both usurps undelegated powers, and as
sumes to punish one man in advance for the pos
sibe fault of another. The argument that, be
cause one man may offend, another must be re
strained, is the lowest foundation of tyranny the
cornerstone of despotism. Liberty is never de-
MED to the people anywhere, on the ground tina
liberty is denied to be good or right, in itself
The universal pretext of every despotism is, tina
liberty is dangerous to society,-that is, that tn
people are unfit to enjoy it,