Sword and shield. (Clinton, Miss.) 1885-1888, 1885-04-04

eAAe4C
Every great reform in the course
of its developement is said to pass
through three stages. In the first,
mo notice is taken Of it by the prac-
tical mind. In the second, iC is de-
nounced as unworthy of notice.
While in the third stage its expe-
diency is conceded and its practical
character acknowledged by all.
That the movement in favor Of the
legal prohibition of the liquor traffic
has met With ridicule, derision, and
contempt, is neither surprising nor
important. No great movement
running counter to.all the customs
and habits of thought of people
ever had different experience. If
it is grounded on a just principle its
ultimate success is assured. Writers
like John Stuart Mill, Laboulaye,
and Won Humboldt have sought to
contract the limits of State legisla-
ton as much as possible without de-
stroying the existence of the State.
But we are willing to grant them
that there is a circle around every
individual which no government
ought to overstep. No one denies
that to-day. Mill has drawn 1t, and
to say with him, this reserved terri
tory includes all that part which con-
Germs only the life, whether inward
or outward of the individual, and
does not affect the interests of others,
or affects them only through the
moral influence of example. Or we
may adopt the limitation of State
action as laid down by Won Hum
boldt, and say that to protect its cit
izens the State must forbid or re-
strict those actions having an i'm
mediate relation to the actor alone,
whose consequences injure others in
their rights; that is, which, without
their consent, diminish their freedom
or their goods, or from which these
results may fairly be apprehended
to proceed.
Does the prohibition of the trefic
in intoxicating liquors fall within
any such limitation of State action
as is here marked out ? It certainly
does not. No one can doubt but
that the results which may fairly be
apprehended to proceed from the
traffic in Intoxicating liquors, dimin-
iSh both the freedom and the goods
Of others, by creating a criminal
class to prey upon both, aud a pau
per class to be supported at the pub
lie expense. No rule of limitation
can be laid down which permits the
existence of the State, and yet de-
nies to it the power to protect itself
against an evil and wrong which
would undermine the very founda-
tions upon which the. social fabric
rests. If the natural and proximate
results of intoxication are disorder,
violence and crime, he must needs
be bold indeed who would deny to
the State the right to protect its en-
dangered interests by prohibiting
the endangering act.
But it is sometimes said that every
one has a right to buy, sell, and
drink intoxicating liquors; that to
deny him this right is. to unjustly
interfere with his natural freedom
from restraint. This argument i'm
plies that this natural freedom from
restraint" is some valuable right
which man possessed in a state of
nature, and which 1t is, therefore,
the duty of the State to recognize
and protect. Every one, however,
ought to know what has been shown
over and over again, that in no
proper or valuable sense has any
such liberty existed or been possi-
BILE. A state of nature in which
man is to be considered as an indi-
vidual without regard to family or
political relations, with a right to do
as he pleases, is a state of perpetual
warfare and contention. 1t is by no
means certain that there ever was
such thing as a natural as distin-
guished from social state. But if
there was, man, when he passed
from his natural into his social state,
merged his natural in his civil rights.
And civil rights are defined by JUS
tice Cooley as embracing the right
to everything not harmful to the
public, or to individuals. Whenever
a private right becomes injurious,
noxious or offensive to the public
good, then the private right becomes
subordinate to the public right,
which community has to demand
protection therefrom. Acts, inno-
cent in themselves, acquire from
circumstances the quality of injur-
ing the public. To carry arms on
ones "person for purpose ofself-pro-
lection in, in itself, an innocent act
per Sc. But where citizens gener-
ally carry arms, the tendency is to
create disorder and cause unjustl6a-
bic taking Of human life. The State,
therefore, prohibits the carrying
dangerous weapons concealed upon
ones person. So the building Of a