Morris tribune., 1882-10-12
PROHIBITION AGAIN.


PROHIBITION AGAIN.
Another Argument in Favor of Legislation
to Prohibit the Manufacture and Sale OF
Intoxicants-The Incidental Evils.
To the Editor of the Pioneer Press
ST. PAUL, Sept 90 have read with much
interest the occasional editorials upon the tenn
perance question, which have appeared in your
paper from time to time during the last few
years. They have, l believe, set forth the
strongest arguments that can be made against
prohibition, and it Is more in spirit of inquiry
than of controversy that ask you to consider
the reasons which incline me very decidedly
to the belief that prohibition is at least theo-
rctically defensible. Whether any act of leg
islation is wise or unwise, depends upon two
considerations: First. has the government q
right to pass the particular act; and secondly,
can the object desired be obtained by its pass
age and enforcement? All Americans will
agree that the State would not be warranted in
passing law. or in adopting a constitutional
provision forbiddiDg all religious Worship. II
all the voting population of America, save one,
should desire such law they possess no right
to enact il, because religious worship belongs
to that department of individual life, the Inva-
sion of which by leg slative authority Is I'M
warrantable. Hence the passage of such q
law would be uuwse; and equally 80 for the
further reason that such an enactment would
be powerless. being beyond human ability to
enforce. States of mind are beyond the reach
of human law. 1t Is the actions of the indi-
vidual that require the attention of legislative
authority. Aud here again We find the State
limited; for it has nothing to do with those
acts of person which concern himself exclu-
sively. There is a large class of actions be-
longing to that sacred department of indiyid-
ual life, where human law can never appear
except az a tyranncal intruder. But there is
another class of human actions which, by their
interference with the rights and liberties Of
others, constitute tho legitimate object of leg
islation.
THE QUESTION RAISED BY PEoHIBITIoNIsTs
is, does tine the act of drinking Intoxicating
liquor belong to the last CLASP If every per
son who drank such intoXicant5 became fIri-
Gus, and endangered the life and liberty Of
others, then all would agree that to prohibit
the use of such liquors would be the right
and duty OF the State. The common sentiment
of all, that the sale of Intoxicants to drunkarAs
should be prohibited proves this statement
Hence, as 1t is legitimate to prohibit such sale
to drunkards, and as the general policy CT tb0
law is already to prohibit such sale to minors.
the only question remaining is, can the SttS9
properly forbid the sale of intoxicants rs Q
beverage to those who make temperate use on
them? Is the act of drinking moderately svsm
an act as warrants such authoritative lnterfer-
ence? If person drinks intoXicants, hRt
not to excess. and by so doing harms Nd
one else, what ground has the State to wIr-
rant its prohibition? None, most certainly.
So the anti prohiDilionists argue that as man
has right to drink what he pleases, he there
fore has right to the means of procuring It,
Such logicians wholly forget that the right ID
drink what one peases closes when the means
of procuring it becomes inconsistent with thu
general good of society. A person has no suca
right 10 drink what he pleases as warrants his
use of all conceivable means of procuring it
He has no such right to drink intoXicanrs 80
would warrant his stealing them were that the
only means he had of obtaining the beverage
nor would he be warranted IN procuring them
by fraud, lying, or any other means not coz
sistent with the general good of society. Wig,
then has he any more right to a buying plaes
as a means of procuring his drink. when that
buying place is now, always has, been, and IN
our present state of civilization must contIaL*
to be public nuisance"
NURSERY OF INTEMPERANCE.
poverty and crime?" The PIONEER PRESS
ssys: eff there is any one thing in this con-
nection about which the American people have
made up their minds it is that the liquor saloon
where young men are enticed to spend their
money and time in cornwall tipping, aud
where habits OF habitual drinking of ardent
spirits are fostered, is q public nuisance, .
nursery of intemparance, poverty and crime"
How the moderate drinkers can maintain their
position that they have d right to drink, and
hence right to the means of procuring it,
when the means they insist upon-the buying
lntemperance, poverty and crime" is, to say
the least, not perfectly clear Could the place
where liquors are bought and sold be stripped
of its incidental evils; could The drunkards be
shut out, and the temptable and vicious be re-
fused admittance; could the GO,000 persons
who are annually transformed from moderate
drinkers into drunkards, thus throwing them
selves and families in many cases upon society
for support, be restrained within. the limits of
moderation; in short, could the buying place
-
iutemperance, poverty and crime" into harm
less place of legitimate trade, then
no one would dispute the moderate
drinkers right to place where he can get his
beverage But such incidental evils cannot be
removed. In our present state of civilization
these incidental evils are as inseparable from
the selling places of intoxicating Liquors as
noxious odors are inseparable from the carbon
in the heat of summer. Now 1t is the buying
place that is leSislated out of existence Trade
social act and within the sphere of legsla-
ton. While TO prohibit the sale. rs to virtually
prohibit the use of intoxicants; it is so Incl
dentallv. Now, which Is the least of tho two
incidental evils: that which consists IN deprlv-
ing the moderate dIinker of his DRAMA mere
restraint of personal indulgence, or that which
consists in what every body knows Is "a public
nuisance, nursery OF intemperanee, poverty
aud crIme?" When either the general good
of society or personal qualification
must surrender, which shall it be?
With what grace can the moderate drinker as
sert his ''persorai liberty" aud demand the
existence of "a public nuisance" as q means
of his lersonal Qualifications Can person
amuse himself at public discomfort, and that
public be remedies? Can u person seriously
claim right TO a place where he can buy
drink, when the existence of that place in
'variably jeopardizes the property, the per-
sonal safety, and the lives of the public, BY
furnishing an easy opportunity for the vicious,
the Iawless, and the criminal, to stimulate
themselves to deeds of robbery, lust and muir
der! 1NouIRER.