The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1885-07-22
-oE THE cLARIoS.l
Another Blunder by Bayard.


Come liseruntled whisksyite has, / see
.asnrrected an old article on local option
.-;tteu by Secretary Bayard in 1881 tc
he Deleware Legislature. This utterancs
,Ls said whiskeyite parades with evident
ruetion. as much as to say that because q
nerocratic Secretary OF State says local
an,ion laws are of doubtful constitutionality
I'd expediency, they must in fact be so
While know that there is large class
~ people to whom the mere word Of a man
l;ks Bavard carries conviction, / am sure
there is a better if not a larger class fol
whom statement must stand or fall on
its merits. no matter who fathers it. To
his class I appeal in the name OF fairness
IA nropose 10 show that maybe the dis.
tinguished Secretary may have made al
eoregious blunder on this question an he
bss in some Of his official appointments
In the first place, il must be taken into
consideration that this letter was written
- 1ssI before prohibition had been a.
thoroughly discussed as it is to-day, and
befor. the Supreme Court Of the United
States had sustained even more and more
stringent probibitory laws, so that perhaps
Nr. Bayard might not have been better in
formed on temperance matters than he
was on Minister Keiley's relations 70 the
Court of Italy. He contends, primarily,
that these local option laws are wrong,
becanse. saws he "they defeat the principle
of our government, which is representative
in character aud places the whole law
making power and discretion in the hands Of
the Legislature and not in the people in
their mere numerical force and primary
capacitv.u Now our government is repre-
ibftf .
place the trhOle law-making power in iegis-
iative hands. The fundamental laws of
the Union and the several States--the
Federal and State constitution-the laws
which are the basis OF all other laws, and
which mold and form all subsequent legis-
lation. much as a vessel molds and forms
a LIQUID poured into it. were enacted, not
by the Legislature, but by the people in
their numerical force and primary capacity
the people whom the distinguished Secre-
tary. with his usual aristocratic tendencies,
deems too un,gise and too uneducated TO
make their own laws for themselves.
Again. when these constitutions are to
he changed and amendments are to be
added, il is the people once more in "their
numerical force and primary capacity"
who are the final arbiters OF the matter"
and not their representatives. constitutions.
These people-enactcd constitutions are the
most vital and important of all laws. 1t
It ia in them that we find guaranteed the
right Of trial by jury, the right OF freedom
Of speech, the right of ofhce-holding and
elective franchise without proper qualifi-
cations, the right of writ of Habeas Cor
pus, that bulwark OF personal liberty, and
in fact all those rights most dear, demo-
cratic, and American, the rights that have
made our claim to be the home of the free
something more than mere empty boast
and oratorical elap-trap. Surely. then, If
the people can decide on matters of
such vital importance they can decide
others of lesser significance. The true
reason that our government is representa-
tive in character is because it il more con-
venient for the less vital laws to be made
by a body Of men chosen for the purpose
than for the whole people to be continually
leaving their employments to vote on every
new and comparatively trifing matter, and
not as Mr.. Bayard insinuated, because they
are too unwise and too uneducated TO make
laws for themselves 1t is in fact but the
application of the principle Of division of
labor to practical politics. 1t is in TACT
Democratic doctrine, no matter what an
aristocratic Secretary of the State may say
of it. " "Vor popltli uo1 Del" 'Of the people,
tor the people and by the people" are con-
tinually on the tongue of Democratic ora
tors and ALWAYS Haunting in the columns
of Democratic papers. Lord Macauley
said that il the truth OF the law of gravi-
tation we're inimical to moneyed
interest there would not be wanting
men to argue against it, and so it is with
this prohibition doctrine that conflicts with
this liquor interest and buttressed and bull
warked by so many millions of dollars that
it seems that every arrow and dart of truth
harmless falls. AS to what he says about
the constitutionality of the laws the courts
OF our lands are against him. As to what
he says of high license stopping whiskey
drinking, we have had forty years OF ex-
perience with them and IN that time the
population has increased 223 per cent and
liquor drinking $40 per cent In lS40 A
gallons of spirits were consumed to every
man, woman and child in the land. In
! SS3 this four gallons had increased to
TWELVE. High license is very effective in
this evil, is it not? About using
moral means, we intend by no means to
abandon them, we intend to fortify them
with the strong arm OF the law. As to
prohibition not prohibiting, we have the
words of Mr.. Bayard against those OF Neal
Dow and Jno. b. Finch and others who
have lived under said laws and devoted
their lives to studying them. Whose evil
dence is worth the most, that of the expert
and the scholar or that of the smatterer and
the seiolist Then as clinching proof that
prohibition does prohibit we have the
violent, desperate efforts of whisky men to
have them repealed whereverpassed. and the
thousands of dollars they expend in en-
deavoring to make judges declare them un-
L. ID. MARSHALL.