The Waco daily examiner. [volume] (Waco, Tex.) 187?-1888, 1885-09-18

the number, to choose between the
new constitution and the republican
constitution of 1866. | chose and
voted for the present constitution,
with all its defects, as the better of the
two. advocated the new constitu-
ton before the people, always with
the qualification that 1t had many de.
fects, but that II was preferable to the
old one. The local option clause in
the constitution was mandatory upon
the Legislature, requiring at the first
session of that body, the passage of
law such as we now have. !, as gov
ernor, being a part of the law-making
power, and having taken an oath to
support that constitution, was of
course bound to obey il and sign the
law, which did.
Prohibition speakers have devoted
great deal of labor TO pro, ing by
reading from supreme court decisions
the validity of the local-option clause
of the constitution and the law
passed in pursuance of it. |
do not know, aud have never
heard of man who questions the va
lidity of either. The labor seems to
me 10 have been entirely unnecessary,
for nobody doubts or has questioned
the sovereign power of the state to
prohibit, wholly or partially, or regu
late as she sees fit the manufacture
and sale OF iutoxicanis in her limits
whether derived from her police pow
ors or from elsewhere, it makes no
manner of difference. IL Is sufficient
to know that her power over the sub
ject IN sovereign and unquestioned. II
is to the exercise of the power that
objection is made, and the logic
upon which the objection rests
applies with equal force to the exer-
else of the power, whether in the state,
the county, or the precinct. Prohibit
ton or local option can not be main
tanned in the precinct, by any argu-
ment which Is not equally potent to
maintain 1t in the county aud in the
state, aud vice versa. Ii majority
of my neigllbors iu my precinct have
the moral right to say that shall use
no beverage with alcohol In 1t, and
shall have no food on my table with
alohol in it,however much my comfort,
my pleasure, or my health may re-
quire the use OF that article, and how
ever discreet and temperate may be
IN using il, the majority in the county
aud the majority in the state have the
same moral right to treat the minor
tiles in the county and the state in the
same way. Tho argument would
seem stronger for the county,
and still stronger for the state, be-
cause OF increased number, aud, there
fore, greater good. If good Tor the
precinct, IL is better for the county
aud best tor the state. Believing that
every sane man in this country,
twenty zone years old, possesses certain
"inaiienable," rights, which no MAORI.
ty, though possessing the power, can
justly or rightfully deprive him OF,
and that among these is the right to
eat, drink and wear what he pleases,
provided he does not offend public
decency or morals and make NUS
ance of himself, and that 10 punish
him with n deprivation ofliberty in
I aginnsf TnrrtoIHfihlen he is guiltless OF
ing beasts of themselves, 10 a crime
against personal liberty and free gov
ernment. l am opposed alike to pre-
cinct, county, and state prohibition.
The theory of democracy favors the
least possible government and
the largest personal liberty.
Capacity for personal self govern
ment by the citizen, under the largest
personal liberty, is the founGa-
TOMBSTONE upon which the fabric
of our free government rests.
I Prohibitions assume that the citizen
Is incapable of personal self-goyern-
ment in respect to the use of alcohol,
and would put guard over his
mouth TO see that none enters. Their
theory is al war with the theory OF
our government. They are sappimg
and mining the very foundations OF
our free institutions in deny ing the
power Of the citizen to govern him
self and his appetites, for upon the
existence of this power depends The
stability of our government. If the
right to use alcohol in any form is
taken away, it is boldly avowed by
prohibition leaders that they will
proceed to make war on tobacco.
What personal right will be free from
assault, and what liberties will the
people possess after they have COM
piled with the demands of this lanati.
clsm Only free men eau maintain
Tree government, Deprive our peo-
pie of their personal liberties and YOU
have undermined the structure of
our Tree government, and it will tum-
BILE TO the ground. No people were
ever too jealous of their liberties. for
grander or truer sentiment was
never uttered, even by Andrew Jack
son when he said that eternal vigilance
is the price of liberty "The general
welfare" the safety of the people
Is the supreme law" and such
generaiities are tho slogans Of
the prohibitiOlists There never
was proclamation of mar
tlal law which strikes down all liberty;
there never was deed of despotisin
done; there never was great crime
against human liberty perpetrated.
that II was not done In the name of
The general welfare" and the "safety |
OF the people" They are most appro- |
priately invoked In this instance, when |
RAID Is being made on the personal
Liberties of the people. "Such sac
rilioe of individual and natural
liberty as is necessary TO the mmon
good" is another OF their catchwords
OF the same character and meaning.
which, IN the sense used by them,
would justify any Cnornity winch
fauatieism could suggest ii seems
never to have occurred TO any ofthsm
that there are personal and individual
rights Inherent in every citizeu-his
birlhright- which are "inalienable.Y
which can not be taken from him /
rightfnlly, nor except by brute force. I
They seem never 10 have heard of the 1
old JeiiersoDian democratic doctrine 1
preserve the personal liberties Of Inc i
people aud they will take care of free n
government" the common good" aud |
me general welfare" 1.-THE safety of 9
he state and people, The people n
reed no guardianship; they only need o
o be LETT alone, each upon his own in o
lividual responsibility 10 public opin- 81
on and the laws. 1t is the habit ST