National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-09-27
DISCUSSING PROHIBITION.
"A Response to /" Fact, Not Reason"

"A Response TO "Fact, Not Reason"
"Fact, not REASON" might have claimed
redit for frankness II he had struck out the
fret word OF his signature. His main propo-
sition is, that majoritles have no right TO
trample down the constitutional rights Of
minoritles; which truism nobody has denied.
His assumption is, that everybody has q
constitutional right to run a saloon; which
he does not dare put into plain words. His
conclusion is, that prohibition Is tyranny
and will lead 10 civil war and bloodshed;
which though Koko would call appalling"
is not based fairly on his premises.
The alleged right to run saloon is based
upon the alleged right OF each person to
drink intoxicants, at pleasure. This right
to drink includes the right to buy drink,
and, by inference, the right Of other persons
to sell IL. The willingness OF the drinller
is held to excuse the vender. II is claimed
that every man must take care OF himself;
that the liquor seller is not the guardian OF
the drunk0rd and may make money out of
his vice and weakness without doing wrong
Hence, saloons and other facilities for pro
noting drunkenness may Of right be es
tablished.
This reasoning, II applied TO the vice OF
gambling, would be thus; Every man has
the right to give away his money. Ergo, he
has the right to bet. II so, every man may
properly provide facilities for betting.
Hence, gambling houses may be established
Of right; and II Is tyranny to prohibit them.
And so Of the vice Of lowdness. Every
person must take care OF number one.
Parents must look out for their daughters
and strengthen their principles, 50 that they
will be proof against all the arts Of the
enticer. IL is no business of strangers TO
guard them, but quite right for strangers to
make money by afror1ng facilities for
lewdDess. Hence, to keep house OF ILL
fame is a constitutional right; and II Is
tyranny to prohibit any money-maklng
citizen from conducting one.
The came reasoning would whitewlsh
those VINO manufacture aud sell counter
felt money, provided the buyer knows what
he is getting. his willingness to buy ex-
cuses the villain who sells.
IL this reasoning is sound the constitu-
ton exists for the exclusive protection Of
the buzzards which find their uourshment
In the corruptious of social life.
1t will be admitted, trust, that parent
has some rights which saloon keeper is
bound to respect. What are they2 A little
reflection will show that the pretended
rights Of the ealoon keeper conflict with
the acknowledged ones Of fathers and
mothers Most parents object to drink
ing saloon near their home as they would
and for similar reasons.
Intoxicants ore like poisons; most OF
them are poisons, and in civilized countries
the right of no man to sell them is recog.
nized. They are sold only under tho super
vision OF the legal authorities.
Without having examined the law OF each
state ON the subject, l hazard nothing in
saying that the pretended right of citizen
to sell intoxicants is not recognized by a
single state or city in this country. In
every one the "right" is denied and the sale
is guarded by exclusion, taxes, and police
supervision. The right Of state to regu-
late, restrain, and prohibit the sale of In
toxicants has been affirmed hundred
times by the courts, and Is not questioned
by lawyers, unless they arc retained for
liquor dealers protective associations.
The expediency OF a prohibition law is
one question; the legal right to pass one
suppressing every public saloon is un'
questionable. B.