The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1875-02-03

/ behests of the whisky power fail TO
execute the law, will you be foolish
enough to repeal it? Or will you not
Iact the wiser part of assisting TO eject
persons to Office who will execute the
law and assist in strengthening the
defective points?
/ What injustice or oppression IS
/ there in this local option principle
that it should be thus assailed2- In
the Declaration of Independence the
great primary. principle of american
1 Government is set JfsrthGiin these
words Ne-hold these truths to be
self.evident-that all men are created
equal: that they are endowed by their
! Creator 3 with certain Sinalienable
rights: that among these are life, lib
erty. and the pursuit of happiness;
/ that to secure these rights govern
ments are instituted among men, de-
/ irving their Just powers from the con-
/ sent of the governed. !" fcTlius recog.
nizinc the grand central idea of a
republic, that the people shall decide
what in their government they deem
i best adapted to promote their safety
/ and happiness. Why not apply this
principle of popular sovereignty to
the people, instead of the County
4 commissioners or Auditor in granting
/ license to sell that which is SO inimieal
/ to the public good? Who is so com
petent to pass on this question as
those who are most Immediately at
fected by the sale or non-saie of
liquor? ls3rpt sysf aa75....ia
If the sale of intoxicants will pro-
mute the welfare. effect the happiness
and decrease the burdens of any com-
munity, will not they know it as well
tas any one else in the county or State?
If, on the other hand, such traffic is
injurious to their interests, interferes
with security to their lives, liberty or
1 happiness, which they have the ina
/ lienable right to demand, who shall
dare. to sas, those persons shall not
! express their condemnation of the
traffic, and refuse to sign petitions
thereafter? But, it may be asked,
/ why apply this principle to the sale of
| intoxicating liquors alone Why not
apply the same rule q = aif7 7fei e
+ TO OTHER KINDS OF BUSINESS?
II answer, because all the ordinary
business of life is sustained and con-
Quoted under the provisions of com
mon law. In our State any one can
follow whatever pursuit he. pleases,
provided he does not interfere with
| the rights of others. But the very
moment he does that the common law
steps in to restrain and .debar him.
At no time in the, history of the Uni
ted States has liquor selling at. retail
been treated as common law traffic.
1t has always been the creature Of
statutory law, because the experience
has shown that the traffic in alcoholics
as a beverage is curse to the drunk
ard, curse to the State. and conse-
quently no State can afford to give
this business the freedom which is
| granted to other trades. ,5,i5 -.
And what, / ask, can be more in
accordance with the genius of re-
publican form of government, than to
allow the people to determine for
| themselves directly whether the traf-
| fc in intoxicants shall or shall not be
licensed In their midst? This is car
rying out the great principle so ably
| advocated by the gallant and eloquent
Douglass, that Of popular sovereign
Ity." Local option virtually declares
that if the people want licensed sa-
| looms in their midst they may SO elect.
| If, however, they do not want them
they may SO ordain. How a fairer
system than this can be devised passes
my comprehension. Is it possible TO
that will adapt itself to popular feeling
half so we'll? Certainly not! A gem
I eral system Of license must in hun
/ dreds of cases overbear the popular
will, and thereby become oppressive
and unjust Wherever it does, that
/ locality is governed not by its own
votes, but by those of other counties
and townships which have no right to
meddle with If. An act of the legisla-
ture is passed by fifty one votes in the
House and twenty six in the Senate.
j Now, if the requisite number of rep
resentatiyes and senators decide that
| liquor selling shall be licensed, for
500 or $50 a year, that decision
makes it legal In townships, and coun-
ties that don I want it. just as fully as
those who do. Hence any man who
chooses to pay the license fee can sell
anywhere in spite of the people. even
if. he be the only man in the township
that favors the traffic, a majority Of
fifty to one is just as powerless to pro-
tect itself from what it esteems great
evil, as a majority OF one in fifty or
500. So the popular willis forced to
| yield to a general, unbending, unac-
commodating law. Surely nothing can
be further removed from pure demo
| cratic principles of government, than
this. What tempest Of opposition
would there be all through this State
/ if the legislature were to pass law
empowering the county commission
ers to appoint even road inspector,
without first having the consent Of a
majority of the voters in the road dis :
! trict And yet of how much more i'm
i portance is it to the we'll being of So
ciety that the people should have the
/ right to decide by a majority in refer
ence to the granting Of license in their
neighborhood? Again, a license sys.
tenn being established by law may be
the work Of a bare majority of the
two Houses-fifty one members of the
lower, twenty->ix in the upper House.
/ These are furnished by forty one out
of ninety two counties. A majority of
one is elected by minority of ten Of
the counties, majority of the other
by a minority of twenty of the coun-
ties. This is the effect OF. the differ
ence in population. Marion county in
connection with Morgan elects three
Senators, and in connection with Shell
by elects i've Representatives, making
her equal in legislative power to Ben
ton Newton. Jasper. White, Mar
shall, Fulton, Pulaski, K osciusko and
| Whitley i'll the Senate, and equal In
the House to Jasper, White, Craw-
ford Orange. Martin. Dubois. Brown,
/ Bartholomew, Fulton, Pulaski and
Starke. She equals nine counties IN