St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-02-21
to say that the exercise of a particular busl-

| locality is legally declared to be nuisance,
| II he prosecutes the same under low or
moderate license, but becomes eminently
proper, and protected by the state, when, by
reason of the particular financial condition
of the individual, he is able to pay g higher
price for the right to exercise such privilege
IA species of legislative prostitution in lieu
OF the Legislative protection towhich the pub
! lie are entitled.
Now, the mere statement of the foregoing
! positions, which are unqnestionable, carries
with them the highest denunciation Of the
policy which is being urged upon the state;
nor can any spectacle be more humiliating
than direct evasion of the solemn duties
devolved upon those individual citizens Sc
lected to enact the laws for the government
of themselves and their fellow-,tizens. II
in their performance of that duty they are
asked and required to proceed by methods OF
palpable evasion, what spectacle Is shown
to the rest of the community. If, upon the
other hand the question is one upon which
they cannot fairly or fully determine without
further consultation with their fellow-cti-
zens, why is not a provision made
for the expression Of public opinion upon
that subject, so that the wishes of the people
may be fully known. If there ever was
subject upon which the law has directly acted,
in which the provisions for its regulation are
| ample and abundant if enforced, the subject
OF the retailing of malt and spirituous Ii Quors
is the one. By the existing law OF Minnesota
the business can only be carried on when 1t
| is permitted by the proper authorities In
every ommunity Of this state, large or small,
| the right OF local option exists unrestricted
and untrammeled, from the largest cities to
the smallest hamlet, and in the more sparsely
caffl a.
| township organizations, the right of local op-
ton exists to-day, and has for years, and the in
dividuals of such communities can, atany time
| they see fit, absolutely terminate all traffic of
this character by proper expression of the
wish OF the majority so 20 do. Having thus
delegated to such communities its complete
| power in this matter, il seems that the egis-
! lature has done enough. 1t is well-knOwu
principle of republican form of govern
ment-yes; even more-it is the vital prin-
| ciple necessary to the duration and perman-
! ency of a republican form of govern ment,
| that the will of the majority under
proper constitutional restrictions shall
| be the law of the land and for all classes OF
| people. It is idle to assert that the advocates
| of high license are now the represen tatives
of such majority. That they are not is ap-
parent from the fact that in none of their sug-
gestions or their widest arguments do they
contemplate the submission of the severe
and arbitrary laws which they clamor for to
the judgment or decision of the people at the
| ballot boxes. It may, of course, be said by
| them that the popular majority are unfit to
| determine the question, but the American
republic has existed for more than century
on that principle, has grown from few
| struggling colonies to the first human power,
| by its adherence to it, has invited and
| gathered its citizens from all countries of the
! earth upon invitations con timing the enun-
citation of that principle and nothing
! else, has continued to assert IL to be the
highest principle of human liberty, has
adopted as its motto the aphorsm that ''the
voice of the people is the voice of God" and
it is too late at this time, or by the argument
! of mere turbuent,a agitation, to now under
take TO say that the principle shall be aban-
| doned aud that there shall be substituted
| therefor the il-con sidered and hasty argu-
| meut of those who would propose to govern
! the state by strictly class legislation. But
! the very arguments and theories of the advo-
! Gates OF high license refute themselves and
| show their inability TO deal with the questions
that affect the public at large or the general
welfare of the community. II is curious
| commentary upon those advocates of patent
| legislation and proprietary laws that, while
| they com plain OF the effect upon the body
polite from the condition of the liquor traffic,
I the exam plies they adduce are wholly those of
individual abuse of liquor; and yet there is
not one word in their proposed legislation
which in any manner or to any extent at
! tempts to legislate against the right OF the
individual to use the liquor, whether its sale
! be restricted or not. COnceding, as they do,
| that all the evils are contained in the excess
! sve use Of intoxicauts, they place no restric
ton upon the rights of the individual who
thus becomes their terrible example, either
| to obtain or use the intoxicating medium,
but they converge all their denun Citations
| forensic and legislative upon the mere ven
dor of the article. II, viewing the question
! from an outside standpoint, those gentlemen
could succeed in pointing out TO the com
muDity the moral difference between the man
who stands behind the bar of his
retail establishment waiting for customers
and the man who, Of his own volition, opcus
the door, walks into the saloon and demands
his particular stimuant, the community
might, perhaps, he able to deal with the SUBJ
icct more ntplligently and more satisfact-
Orily than the advocate Of high license.
The limits of paper of this character will
hardly admit Of detailed argument; one can
but briefly glance at the personnel Of the In
dividuals who are forcing this question both
upon the legislature and upon public atten-
ton They are for the most part gentlemen
who know but little Of the detailed affairs Of
life, who, by reason of their position, are i'm
PEELED to take and do take restricted view
OF ordinary humanity; who are unfamiliar
with business principles and business
habits; who would not be selected as
the ordinary advisers OF business
men on worldly matters, and who, were they
assem- led in legislative capacity, and un-
dertoOk TO produce a code for the govern ment
OF the community, would formulate doctrine
for the government Of communities which
would utterly and com pletely annihilate any
freedom of action upon the part Of the indi-
vidua. ii must not be assumed, for it is
not the fact, that the citizens of Minnesota
are a community of drunkards II IS not
justice, and It should never be law, that the
masses Of the community should surrender
their individual legitimate and proper tastes
in individual matters for the benefit Of, and
as IN example to, the individual member Of
the community who is known as the habitual
drunkard. II is an absurIity TO say to the
temperate man that you who com
nit no moral or legal offcusc
by the temperate use of liquors,
when such use has been INDUCED In since
the creation Of the human family, shall sur
render that right for the benefit Of some
worthless wretcn, who, out Of his individual
selfshuess-for drunkenness Ia nothing else
CHOOSES TO debase himself by the abuse Of
liquor; and it IS "A greater absurdity to innict
upon those persons engaged In 4 legitimate
business Of supplying a proper and legiti
mate public demand for an article Of ordi-
nary consumption, that they should be sub
jectcd, under the pretense Of license, to a
tax which is both OdiOus and unjust.
One Of the favOrite arguments Of the ad-
vncniesOf high lirensr Is TINT the lesscning Of