Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1881-01-27
TEMPERARoE LEGTsLArIOs.
1s the Decision of the Delaware
Courts that Local option is Uncon-
stitutiOnnl Antiquated!

stitutionnI Antiquatedi
Editor State Journal: l have Just read
with considerable surprise your remarks
upon the present movement of the friends
of temperance to obtain further legislation
upou the subject. | say surprise, because
the tone of said editorial seems so incon-
sistrnt with that regard for the public well
fare " nich has been 80 often expresst d in
your editorial columns, and therefore
believing that you did not quite intend
what your words imply, ask brief space
for courteous reply.
take the liberty herewith to send you
the report of the first annual session of the
Delaware State temperance Alliance, and
would respectfully ask you whether the
names If the officers and members of COM
mittees which you will fad in this docu-
ment, many of whom are we'll known TO
you, are the names OF ''ps opie who do not
have much respect for constitutions and
such Instruments, considering them anti
quated obstacles to progress
You believe yourself, Mr.. E iitor, III
progress in morals as well rs in journal
ism. You do not however, say whether
you consider the former decision of .he
courts o. this State upon the constitution
ality of so-oalled local option law, as
'antiqusted' obstacles or not. 1t is posi-
BILE, however, since there is progress in
law-making, as well as in other things, tina
they may have become antiquated, and
ought no longer to stand in the way OF
proper reform. And this is the opinion
OF men eminent in the legal profession
both in this state and the State OF Mary
land, to go no farther from home. You
are, of course, aware that law embracing
all the essential features of what is termed
a local. option law, is 10 successful aud
beneficent operation elsewhere, aud its
oonstitutionality is sustained by the
courts.
But MIR. Editor the gentlemen com posing
"The Delaware State Temperance
Alliance" are neither fanatics or fools.
They do not seek to obtain their ends by
denunciation, nor by indirection They
do not propose to ask the Legislature to
pass any law comforting legislative
powers upon the people" We prefer to
lot the responsibility of law making re-
main unto those who have been elected to
that duty, and who cannot in the nature
of things obligate it to others. Nor do we
consider that there is any necessity for
this. You, yourself, advocate the passage
of ''a law to regulate and restrict the sale
OF spirituous liquors" Then, of course,
you hold that the Legislature has power
to restrict such sale to point which will
be virtual prohibition. The present law
requires the person applying for license,
to sell intoxicating liquor,,to submit TO the
court petition signed by "12 respect
able citizens" "a most unfortunate substi-
tuition for ''substantial freeholders" in the
laW of 1871 supnnse now tha law
to be 30 amended as to require said
applicant to have his petition signed by
20 majority of all the legal voters or by
"a majority of all the substantial free
holders" in the school district or hundred
where he desires to sell, would such a law
be unconstitutional Would that be an
investing the people with legislative
powers any more than under the present
lawf 1t is now no longer question of
constitutionality, but of the public welfare.
1t is simply question of what regulation
or restriction the best interests of the State
demand. Aud when our Legislature
refuse to make suitable laws for the public
welfare, when the people demand 1t,
through their inalienable right of petition,
then, doubtless, the people will elect
others who will. These views may
perhaps, be considered radical, but do
not think that they can be justly stigma
tised as fspstical. Radicalsm may be
good or bad. 1t is of course tearing
things up by the roots-but when the
roots are those of cancer on the body
polite, the rsdioalism is good.
Yours very respectfully,
O HUNTINGTON,
DOVER, DEL, January lS. 1881.