The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1881-05-05
Prohibition.

MR. EDITOR: notice in your issue OF
the 2lst ult. communication over the
signature Of w. w. Brown on the sub
jcct Of the States right TO prohibit the
sale of liquor. disagree with my
young friend, and while boast no abili-
ty to measure swords with him, will
offer the following for his consideration.
He says
|. "'Such Ia,r transcends the true ain,
and object Of civil government"
Is such the case? Think not Vattel
says: "a State is society of men united
together to promote their mutual safety
and advantage by means of their union" )"
He also says: ut ia necessary that there
should be established public authority
to order and direct what ought to be done
by each in relation to the end of the as
sociatioD." And again: at is evident
from the very act of the civil or political
association, that each citizen subiects
himself to the authority of the entire
body in everything that relates to the
common welfare" So we see the State
has the right to pass any law that may
tend To the common veal.
But it is necessary to proper under.
standing of the subject that we know
what are the true aims of civil govern
ment. They are, says Vattcl-1st. To
procure by united effort plenty. End. To
procure the happiness Of the citizens /;
and, Sd. To protect the subjects from
external attacks. We will try to keep
in view our object, viz: To show that
the State has the right to prohibit the
sale of liquor. The State has right to
pass any law that will attain the end or
aims of civil government.
1st. To procure plenty. The State has
the .!sA. to prohibit any thing which
takes from its citizens the necessaries of
life. 1t takes corn, rye, time and labor
to make liquor. The use of it destroys
the industry, talent, health and even de-
stroys the citizens themselves, and there
u. by weakens the State itself.
~" End. To procure Happiness. II is not
enough to have plenty, for one may be
rich and at the same time unhappy-yes
miserable. Can man be happy and at
the same time immoral? Is not morality
essential to happiness? The latter can
not exiet without the former. Such is
the language of Vattel. Now, if moral
ity is essential to happiness, and it is the
duty of the State to procure for its citi-
zens happiness, which "is the centre to
which all the duties of man and peo-
pie tend, and is the powerful spring that
puts all men in notion" has not the
State the right to pass any law which
will accomplish this object? While the
State may not be able to make "moral
beings" it should try to Improve the
morals of its citizens.
3rd. The third object or aim of civil
government is to protect the citizens from
external attacks. will mention under
this head the capture of Troy.
We have tried to chow that the State
hes TIE .igh: to pass any law That viii
accomplish the objects of government.
Would Prohibition add anything to our
Wealth. According to political economy
every bushel Of corn that ia made into
whiskey and used to no benefit makes
the State that much the poorer. If by
the use of it time is wasted, talent,
health, industry, and even men are de-
stroyed, has not the State the right to
prohibit, as far IS possible, this evil 2
Shall the State stand back and say
"There is al evil, but We can't reach it,"
No. Where there is wrong there is a
remedy.
But that is not all. A temperate per-
son has an advantage over an intemper-
ate person in the chances of life, which
differ at different eges as follows:
Age. Temperate. Incorporate