The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-02-14

under many restrictions, such as taxes.
! licenses, patents, and limitations. Some OF
these have Tor their object the welfare OF
! individuals. some OF them the public well
fare. Every one OF them is limit or bur-
den on the rights Of yenders, and every
limitation on the rights Of ycnders neces-
sarily entails corresponding limitation on
the rights OF consumers. But their neces-
sity 1. universally conceded. and no
reasonable person would call them an
! injustice either TO yenders or consumers.
Among them Is the law forbidding traffic
on Sunday. II Is prohibition resting both
on sellers and buyers. yet | am not aware
that II has ever been considered by the peo-
! pie an injustice. On the contrary. the law
has always been regarded as pr eDinently
The expression OF the public will. The peo-
pie OF the country have thus far considered
ii highly conducive 10 the public good That
traffic should be suspended on Sunday, and
have recognized and maintained the right
OF Government TO decree and enforce the
sane. Nor is there any evidence that
the people at large hold different view
now. Such being the c1se, the appeal Of
any special sort OF traffic against the law is
petition for the formation Of q privilege d
class among businessmen, which, though
it may be asked as a favor, can certainly
not bc demanded as a right; and so, as far
as the rights OF sellers are concerned, tho q
can he no allegation OF injustice in the
present law.
viii it he said that, in the present case,
the viol ton OF right is on the side OF the
consumers-that the right OF having free ac-
cess 10 drink on Sunday IS so special a.rlght
! that restriction put upon 1t is an lntuS-
tice TO consumers, even though they may,
without injustice, he debarred from other
articles OF traffic on that day? Or is there
so special need OF having free access to
drink on Sunday that a special exemption
from law ought 10 exist In regard 10 1t? 1t
is not likely that, with the facts OF the case
before the world, any one has ever serious
! ly advocated such special exemption in
favor of drink on the plea OF public
necessity or public utility. 1t is asked
for the sake Of the qualification and
enjoyment OF those among the community
who desire the privilege. Now, FAR be it
from me 10 wish that any portion OF the
conn unity should be depriy d Of any en-
iOyment that is innocent and c)nSis ent with
the public welfare; but, on the other hand,
no ol e can think of denying that human
desires and qualifications are necessarily ard
wisely put under many limitations and pro-
good; and unhapply The social statistics Of
the world show bat too plainly that The de-
sire for drink, far iIom being matter for
special exemption and encouragement, is
matter for special Encouragement and re-
siraint for the sake Of public morality and
peace. This is not the occasion for a tenn
perance speech nor have | any intention If
making one, although in proper time and
place never fail 10 ncucate tenn erance
with all the earneStness in my power.
| But with the present question before us We
cannot but advert TO the unquestlOnabIc
facts in public and in private life, which
show that the desire for drink Is the source
OF most OF the violations OF public peace
and order; that it Is the cause OF most OF
the umhappiness that deSOla'es too many
homes; that it is the occasion OF wasting
the fruits OF honest toll in ruinOus dissipa-
ton; Of squanlering what ought to be
spent in making homes comfortable, and
training children rightly; that it robs the
country OF good citizens, and gives it
scOurees instead These are facts which no
man can galnsay, and they show how alb
sutd would be the claim that the desire for
drink ought 20 be made a matter of special
privilege. 1t is idle 10 endeavOr to cloak
the matter over by saying that it is "re
THAT they ought to be allowed to have them.
Common sense and experience show bu
too plainly and sadly that it is drink that i
meant: that it is the desire Of drink that il
nt the bottom of this agitation. and that l
IS enc OF the last OF human desires tina
ought to be made matter OF special privilege
As far, therefore. as justice and injustice ar'
concerned Us implied by the rights OF sci
lers and consumers. nothing can be salt
against the present law. And il no rigil
, demands that vendors should he allowed L
, sell liuuor on Sunday o. consumers to bul
if. assuredlv no right can demand that tb
nenaltv for violation Of the law should b.
made so light as virtually TO tolerate its ylo
lation. Such a pretence would be IN TACT
pctjtion for the abrOgaliOn OF the law, dis
guised under very thin cloak OF evasion
and its very insincerity IS another leasol
for its rejection.
In the second place, then, let us ak, J.
the Sunday iquOr tar perniclouSY 1t j
alleged that the closing OF liquor saloons OF
Sunday impels people TO resort to clandes
fine and dangerous means Of obtaining
what they want. Now, this is true Of ever.
restriction put upon human desires; We
who would say that therefore no restriction
/, should be put by civil law upon the graf ID
cation OF human desires? Such principi
would be the destruction OF the enilr
, criminal co e and the Subyersion OF S0cla
order. In this case, and IN every case o
the kind, there are two sides to the qnes
ton, two sets OF evils to be considered ant
balanced one against the other: on the on
hand, the secret evil 10 which men may b
; driven by the law; on the other, the publ
{ evils that may be encouraged and dissent
\ mated if the legal prohibition were abolished
. Now let any impartial and reasonable mai
weigh the two sides in the matter nOT
, under discussion, and he cannot hesitate L
decide on which side lies the less evil, an
on which side the greater. No reasonabI
man can doubt that il drinking-saloon
were thrown open on day OF general s'ls
nension OF work, and when WOrklGgme
: have lust received their weeks wages ID
increased facility and tic pubic lnVltatlo
d To drink would inevitably lead to Il grea
increase OF intemperance on that daN, an
| nronortionate increase OF public disturb
ance and private misery. Putting thc tWoSe
Of evil calmly before Us, we cannot hesitai
: which is the less; and the verdict mu'
surely be that the perniclou>ness hes not
the law, but in its proposed virtual aDol
. ton.
Z, Finally, let lis ask, in the third place,
y the Sanddy liquor tar contrary to tht SpT
:, of Oltr Institutions? ? The seventY-hIih chsl
> fer Of the Code of Virginia has been reierre
> 70 as having bearing against the law. Or
: is tempted to wonder whether the reieren'
> was made seriously or IN jest. Could an
: one seriously assert that the prohibition
=. sell and buy liquor on SUNDAY Is yioiatic
: OF any mans conscience, is an obstacle