The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1881-04-28
Should State Prohibit the Sale Of
Intoxicating Liquors :!

y
valuable paper appeared an article claim
ing that State, or civil government,
fought not to pass law prohibiting the
sale Of ardent spirits" Whether its
author merely intended to provoke dis
cussion of the subject by taking the po-
sition that he did, and thus bring it
prominently before the public at this
particular time, with a view to proyok-
ing thought, and accomplishing good,
which I prefer to believe, or whether the
views therein expressed were his real
convictions, I am not prepared to say.
But be that as it may, since he has furn-
ished the grounds upon which his opin-
ions aTe based, desire to test them and
see if they will not crumble beneath the
aoeigAt of the arguments that exist in
favor of prohibitory laws.
When some unexpected calamity or
evil is about to befall people, then it
may be true that in the effort to subvert
it good judgment will not be exercised,
by reason of too much zeas, or acting on
the impulse of the moment. At this late
day, in looking for remedy for the evils
that exist in our State, by reason of the
liquor traffic, we need not apprehend any
danger in that direction.
There is zeal, great zeal, being shown
at this time on the subject, and my earn
est desire is that it will never abate till
it has swept triumphantly over the re-
motest bounds of our Commonwealth.
This zeal is not blind. Neither was it
born of a moment. 1t has shining in its
face, in full midday splendor, the light
of years of experience as guide. 1t is
no new question. We are not called upon
to rout an enemy that has just invaded
the camp. For centuries his missiles of
death have been flying thick and fast
over the field, spreading CONSERVATION,
terror and carnage in its path. To ami
hilate him the tongue and pen of the
most gifted of our philanthropists in the
past have been vigorously employed; the
religious, and large part of the secular
press. of our State have sxerted their
mighty power to mould and shape public
opinion againstit; the church, the clergy,
Christian men and women of all denom-
nations, BY entreaty, by exhortation and
personal effort have thrown, in great
degree, into one channel their influence,
so that by its power the last vestige of
this evil might be swept from existence.
Upon our statute books are stringent laws,
enacted by our Legislature, with the hope
to suppress it to some extent. But what
has been the result? Has the enumber Of
bar-rooms in our State decreased? Is
there less drunkenness, pauperism and
crime in the State now than formerly Z
Mol The contrary is undoubtedly true.
Then, what is to be done? This adver-
tackled: he is active, subtle, insidious and
increasingly attacking every scheme Of
improvement and plan of reformation.
General benevolence, social self-interest,
enlightened patriotism and Christian
civilization all protest against the con-
tinuance of a system which is at war with
every true interest of the State. Could
we personify this civilization appealing
to her friends-the friends of invention,
of intellect, of justice, aud religion-we
should depict her standing in the midst
of all the wreck and ruin which strong
drink has wrought from the beginning of
time, and as she points to the veil which
hides the future from all eyes but one,
we should behold her pleading that such
wreck and ruin should not embarrass
and impede her in her progress through
the years to come. Let us learn wisdom
from the futile efforts of the past, and
making stepping stones of our failures
let US rise to a higher plane of activity,
and as last resort demand of our Leg
islature the passage of law prohibiting
the sale of liquors as beverage in South
Carolina.
I maintain that such la,o does not
transcend the true object and aim Of govera-
n,ent, nor does it violate the right of prop
erty.
The paramount object of government
is to promote the public good of the
people of State, All means to be used
are legitimate, except those expressly
forbidden by the Federal Constitution.
Restraining or prohibitory laws are not
enacted to infringe upon the use of GER
tain rights entirely, but it is the abuse of
them, and the consequent evil that fol-
lows the abuse, that calls for the inter-
ference of-government.
If any trade, employment, or use of
property, that is within itself right and
useful, becomes indirectly detrimental TO
the life, health, prosperity or order of
people, it is by the Common Law de-
clared nuisance. The government,
then, in order to promote the public well
fare, must assume the right of. sacrificing
private interests to suppress it.
Are private rights, then, subordinate
to the interests of the public? If so,
then the argument of my friend is an.
swcred. might say chat the best evi-
dence of what is within the object and
aim of civil government is what has
been done by it, especially when the act,
as in the case under consideration, has
been so declared by the highest Court
known to our law.
Private rights may be, and have been,
from time immemorial, sacrificed in this
State fer public good.
If it be asked on what grounds gov
ernmcnt is justified by prohibiting man
employing his capital in the sale of
liquor, it would suffice to simply answer,
that government may put down whatever
is dangerous to society. "Sdtus popuH
suprenaa ler."
But to meet the argument fully, it is
justified upon principles fundamental to
all social and governmental organizations.
In entering into society every individual
surrenders certain of his natural rights
such as the vindication of his wrongs,
the protection of life and property-in
consideration that society will insure to
him the peaceable enjoyment of his un-
surrendered rights, and indemnity for all
wrongs done to him. One right surren-
dered is the privilege of doing anything,
though personally beneficial, or pursuing
any occupation the natural or probable
result of which are, or are likel y to be,
injurious to other members of society;
and the right to sell liquor must be class