, 1879-11-27
PUGET SOUND ARGUS
-yIyScN TEMPERANCE.
THOSE TEMPERANCE BILLS.

having Tor their object the rcstric.
tion OF the retail traffic in intoXica,
ing liquors, ltthinks that they must
he construed jointly, and they con.
fic,. We are surprised that our co.
temporary ioss not understand the
case more clearly.
Mr.. Snydsr's bill! specifies that Ger
tain person may be declared to be
babitual drunkard's persons who
drink to great excess, thereby csus
ing them to neglect or abuse their
families, or to become burdensome
charge on the public-that complaint
may be fled with the county Probate
Judge, that said officer must order
trial aud summon the accused to ap
pear, that If he finds the complaint
properly drawn and sustained it shall
be his duty TO declare the accused to
be habitusl drunkard,. according to
the complaint and under the provi'
sions of the act, and that any Or all
persons may then be prosecuted and
fined for selling or in any way die
posing of intoxicating liquors to such
a person after he has been properly
and publicly declared to be a habitual
drunkard. In other words, the bill
aims at absolute prohibition as far as
the confirmed drundard is concerned
while it doesn't interfere with the
liquor traffic in any other way. Mr..
White,th fearless opponent of Local
Option and Civil Damage bills, ia
yored the "drundard's bill" with his
cordial support. He deemed its OBJ
ject--that of making drunkenness
odious-to be laudable and worthy
OF attaining. We look upon the bill
as being a mild one, in TACT kind of
halfway measure, but it will doubt
less meet few isolated cases, aud
may do considerable good. If it
succeeds in protecting those who
are too weak under the appetite for
strong drink, to protect themselves,
it will certainly be beneficial in its
results. Mr.. DsJorup, the member
from Island county, said he had sold
whiskey "a good many years" but
he would support this bill--and he
did. .als H 4
The Civil Damage act, which we
insert in this issue, provides that I
sonabls damages may be recovered
from liquor dealers for injuries
either in property or person-eaused
by ANY one while intoxicated with
liquor sold or disposed of by said
dealers. The two acts are as plain
as words can make them; and be-
cause the one provides for the rscov-
cry otdAragss caused by the retail
of spifitsous liquors to ANY person,
we fail to see wherein it conflicts
with the other which provides that
there are certain persons who shall
be prohibited from obtaining intoxi.
eating beverages at all. In the one
case the damages shall be such as
may be equi;ably recovered for in. |
juriss actuallyrsceived; in the other |
case, RIsE is imposed upon the Of |
fender wbs disposes Of liquors to any
person whom the law pronounces to
be debarred from having it. Just
where the ''vsxatious and annoying |
litigation" will come ia, we cannot |
undsrssand--as concerning the jOint
or separate workings Of the two acts. |
They are separate and distinct; as
much 20 as are any other two laws !
which have entirely separate and dis.
tinct objects. Take sithsr one away |
and the other would still be com. |
Plete, and conviction or an acqu.t !
tai Oa a charge under either one |
vO0ld in no wise affect a conviction