West Virginia freeman. (Parkersburg, W. Va.) 1881-1886, 1881-02-23
REASON AND CONSISTENCY
The Prohibition Amendment.

The Legislature Of West Virginia,
Is called upon to consider in all
seriousness the propriety, not Of en-
acting a prohibitory law as it
might do, but of submitting to a cote
Of the peop'e, this very important
question, Shall the Manufacture
and sale Of Intoxicants be Prohibit
cd?" The question demands Sc
rious consideration. 1t is not the
growth of fanaticism, moro a sudden
impulse of few. The problem
has been forcing itself up, up, up
for years past Let the Older citi-
zens reflect for moment, what a
change has come over the minds of
people with respect to it during
the last twenty years. The ques-
ton must be met. To-day it is
forcing itself upon score of State
Legislatures and will not down at
anybody's bidding.
REASONABLE REQUEST.
The people are the sovereigns.
They had a right to enact the
present constitution. The con-
vention was but their servant to
frame it to suit them. They have
right to change that clause Of it,
referring to the traffic in intoxica-
ting liquors. The State is one, and
its fundamental law should be uni
form. The right to enact such a
clause into our constitution is con-
coded by all.
Already thirty-seven counties of
the State with population of 341,-
SIS have virtually prohibited the
traffic, though in seven of these,
licenses have occasionally been
granted to a very limited extent.
Thirty of them grant no license at
all: while seventeen counties,
with a population of 276,Gl7 adj
here to the license policy, though a
few of them are somewhat restric-
tive. These seventeen are Berkeley,
Cabell, Fayette, Harrison, Jefferson,
Kanawha, Lewis, Mason, Mineral,
Ohio, Putnam, Randolph, Summers,
AVetzel, Monroe, Marion, and Wood,
Can any body doubt what the will
of the majority of the people is on
this question. They ask to express
their UiU. Is it not reasonable to
allow them to do so? Ten thou
sand petitioners are here. -Four
times that many more would be
here if three months time had beed
taken. The people are waiting
with breathless interest. Inspired
with hope Of success, Wheeling is
suddenly all ablaze with enthu-
;siasm. Can the Legislature afford
to deny the people the privilege
they ask?
THE LOSS TO MANUFACTURERS.
But we are told manufacturers
will suffer great loss should the
amendment be ratified.
- They made their investments
with fell knowledge of the right of
the State to prohibit their business.
Under the constitution as it is,
they may be prohibited from sell
ing one gallon within the State.
The people who made that pro
vision, have a right to make a new
provision prohibiting both the
manufacture and sale This will
not be denied. The supreme court
of the United States has decided
frequently that such a State regu-
lation is not repugnant to the con-
stitution of the United States.
(See IS Wall. 1873; 81 U. S. Rep. Is
5 How. 5O4D Mr.. Justice Cooley
says the State may restrict the
rights of citizens to do that which
is harmful to the public or to other
individuals. The right to pass and
ratify such an amendment, though
it cost untold millions to individ-
uals, will not be questioned.
Men may honestly differ as to the
propriety of the measure, though
this is more a question before the
people than in the halls of legis-
1ation. But let us see. Who will
lose the most,-a few individuals
by prohibiting, or the State at
large by allowing the traffic?
Life Insurance Companies have
made a special study Of this sub
ject with reference to disease and
death. Mr.. Nelson, distinguished
English actuary has compiled tables