Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1884-07-03
Prohibltory Liquor Law.
BY DR.. DIo LEWIS
SOME OBJECTIONS.

| ed lot Selllng 10 person who is inSaD
or non conaDos naentis, the prohibition
ist exclaims, "Snch q law thorouphl
enforced, would cure ninety-nine hun
dredths OF the curse, because ever
man who drinks too much rum is no
compos nae'stis.
Such a man is m0ru1lu defective
| This confusion between the moral an,
the legal leads to all our rdisagreements
The man who drinks too much rum
| uses too much tobacco, or INDUCES i,
bad dress, bad food, bad theatres. idle
ness, or any of twenty other vices, ma,
be morally non coDapos naentis, bu
nine hundred and ninety-nine thous
andths of such men are legally sane
However, any one may challenge /,
drinkers sanity, and demand q trial
If the jury decides that he is sane, he il
| free.
Millions of people are unreasonable
and most sinful in their lives, bu
there are very fewswho are leqalty in
sane. And until they commit crime
or make legal nuisalIce of themselves
they are as free, and may claim az
complete protection as the very salt OF
the earth, though our Puritan Fathers
did not think SO.
PrOnlDltlODIStS Will De quick to de-
clare that we miss tile question, that
they have never treated drinking as a
crime, that prohibitbry legislation is
directed against the sale; that is the
crime.
The cook who conti ibutes to gluttony
by his appetizing 6mpounds, ia ac-
cessory to vice, sbu is not guilty of a
crime.
The grog-sellersis accessory to anoth-
er vice. To say thathe is guilty of
crime, because hcis scccssory to q vice,
ID to ignore the dictionary, and talk
nonsense.
To admit that imam has q legal
right to drink, and ten send a consta-
b!e to stand betweenhim and opportu-
nifty, is adding insultto tyranny.
To say that you lAve legal right
to use patent medici les, one of which
you wish to swallow and then send
officers to stand betfeen you and the
drugstore, weuldbel parallel absurdi-
ty.
The prohibitionist would say to a
man who wishes 70 fink:
"My dear fellow, pu have a perfect
legal right to drink. |ut should smile |
to see you buy any.1
The right to drinklncIudes the right
to buy, not theerigh to buy through
the lying prescripti4 of tricky doc
tor, but the rightstd buy of any one
who conducts the SIZE without crime |
and without makingLis business le- J
gal nuisance
A prohibitionist Nth whom I had |
a newspaper uiscusslq some yeare ago,
rested his case uponthe affirmation,
n &s&tS -
"The pubhc gnod ssthe only object
='s.s. z .ssst t.of tllezaw AIM o. -.
With the populsy sheaffhg attached
to that familiar seIence, l take issue.
The only object an duty of the legis-
lature Is to protect le rights OF the IN
dividuals who cortitute the pubic.
In this matter of hman rights there
is, strictly speaking no such creature
as the public. Pesons who talk so
of the rigEs ofsociety, should
be asked to find sotety. Let them go
down street, turn the right, to the
left, everywhere; thy will find man,
a woman, child: mother man, anoth-
er woman, another:hild, and so on for
a million. Each ofthese men, each OF
the women, each q the children, has
rights This talk Of the rights OF So
ciety as against thtindividual, always
me of corporations. A cor
poration is said tohave no soul; IL Is
guiityof all sorts If tyranny ana IN
iustice toward the poor, but nobody Is
to blane-it is ths corporatiol. Inc
is composed of individuals
W whosemeanness and cowardice in SHIFT
ing tie responsibility to the creature
they call the corporation, .s precisely
paralel to the rights of society as
against the individual. The memhers
Of a durch have rights; they have no
church rights, but they have rights as
i'm a church. No human
being has any riohts whatever except
as an Individual. And when million
of merIact together, in what is called
not one of them obtains
apy rkhts thereby, except as an IN
dividud. The phrase SO much USED,
1.-THE rifhts of society" is a mere trick
of words, which, like the rights OF
corporaiion," is often used to cover IN
Anoler prohibitions. speaks of an
old maIm:
The public good is the supreme
T haye never heard of such maxim;
hut I hsve heard that
1.-THE public safety is the supreme
The wilole difference between the
y;aws Fam advocating. and the views
of tho extreme prohibitionjst, is found
II, the adherence between the words
..oood,, add "safety." 1.-THE public
ssfetv,i isendangered 10y an armed in
vasions byh conflagl alton or contaglon;
and in thiF presence, the rights of In
must give way. Necessity
knows nolaw."
MThe pJblic good" is endangered by
false RELIGIOUS and political theories,
hv errors1n dress, sleep, food, drinks,
eie To hese vices nothing but reason
and nerstRsion can be addressed.
IF the Central Park reservoir should
a;ve way the man who saw it would
Ra justified in seixing his neighbor's
horse and rush down town, shouting
.tThe waters are coming, run for
your live" o.ah.
hor,s horse and rush through the street,
shrieking, H..
nor y il Iwould be a different case.
If sone temperance man were 70
sa;ze a horse in Broadway and tear
throupl1 the streets, shouting,
..1',irr out, turn out, for Gods sake,
tnrn out: Jim Bile ia selling Pete Smitn
q glass of whiskey,' tile chances al 9
that instead of the court holding tnat
the ..nublic safety" justified the seizure
of tbe horse, the Jealous friend OF TEN,
naranee would have to ask some friend
to bail him out. 49,
Instead of its being maxim tha.
.ttbe n,blic good is the supreme law,