Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1889-07-11
Common. Sense and Justice.

glad to answer. He gives the R,
public credit for entire sincerity in Il
vigorous opposition to prohibition an,
points to the fact that in SO opposin
1t il stands shoulder to shoulder will
those engaged in the liquor traf1i
whose enmity it has excited by its I'D
vocacy of high license. He also point
out that those engaged i'm the trafii
are inconsistent in asserting that pro
4 hibition increases the Gales of intoxi
eants at the same time they oppose il
Then, IL being assumed that the rea
reason of their opposition is that sale,
are decreased by it. he asks on wha
grounds the Republic opposes 1t.
t1e has suggested most importan
ground in asserting his Willingness Il
submit to deprivation of personal
qualification for the general poo4,
This is an admirable quality. It's cor
relative quality is unwlllingness to use
force in bringing others to the same
view, where the sacrifice to be made
is one Of natural right. In the Repul, !,
tac's view, 1t Is the natural right o.
anyone to drink intoxicants, just ms II
Is the natural right If society "a hold
MN strictly accountable for his acts,
whether drunk or sober. This natural
right is only sorfeitabls with simiiar
rights after conviction for crime
When the State has q convicted GRIN.
inal IN its charge, it is it's duty 10 see
that he does not get drunk. Tbe r.
puottc Is absolutely and without onal-
ification in favor OF absolute and nm
qualified prohibition ia the peniten.
tlary. The State excludes intoxieanfs
from its prisons to prevent their in.
mates from drinking This is propar
IL Is not proper, however, in our view.
ior lt To attempt to treat free and mn
convicted persons In the same way.
even though majority should be In
favor of doing it. This has always been
the hrst consideration with the Repub-
tac ln opposing prohibition.
It's true that. opposing it on SAas
ground, the Republic has found itself
10 line with those engaged in sne traf-
nc. Ii Is not less true that. n it's adj
vocacy OF high license, Il has found ex-
IRENE prohibitionists and the most
vicious class of fSaloOn-keepers in open
opposition TO IL. The motives are so
well understood as not to require esS.
planation. We believe, however. from,
observation, that while the better class
OF saloon-keepers prefer high license to
prohibition, those who are lawlessly
disposed would choose prohibition.
rather than high license regulation.
rms suggests an answer TO the ql,es-
ton, Why are those interested iD the
sale of intoxicants opposed to prohibi-
ton. supoosing that it does not dimin-
ish consumption? 1t may be conf
IDENTIFY asserted that this is in part due
to the fact that many of them are law
abiding men who would go out of the
business il il were declared unlaw full.
IL IS a lucrative business and for that
reason they wish to remain In it. For
the same reason lawless persons who
are now kept out by the fact that the
demand is supplied would supply the
demand in defiance of law, taking tt.-
places of law-abiding dealers. TAiss
10 demonstrated and not disputed. The
only disputed point is bow far the law
ess supply goes towards meeting de-
nand where prohibition is In force
that is, how far prohibition succeeds
q depriving those who wish to drink
If opportunity TO do SO. We have
statistics at hand which go far towards
answering the question. but we hays.
'ften published them and it is not neca
ssary to repeat them. We may state.
IS our conclusion from them, that
While the lawless sales may not equal
o amount the sales under the upreg-
Ilated traffic. prohibition as a restric-
ion on sales. is less effective than we
'elieve regulatory high license would
le. We oppose prohibition then.
First, because the State has no rlghs
o say that the citizen shall not sfSink
ntoxicants, and consequently no right
o deny him access to them unless he
las forfeited his rights Of liberty by
rime and the forfeiture has been de-
Jared by his conviction.
Second, because where the denaand
ar intoxicants exists so strongly as ta
eem to excuse prohibiio-y lessslation,
his demand will, under economic laws
g met by supply in spite Of acts of the
legislature or rofconstitntfonala of amend
nents, the passage of which. while
either saspending natural liberties
or natural laws. foster contempt for
aw enacted by the majority and 80
ncourage law-breaking.
Third, because we believe that high
cense Is i'm the line of and that in its
workings it will be reinforced by the
avs of trade 80 AS to minimize the
rattle without infringing the liberty Of
he citizen.
The theories of prohibition and kfyf,
cense regulation are entirely differ
mt. Under prohibition the right to
rink is denied; under high license il
: acknowledged and with it is conced-
To dealers who conform to the law
he privilege af selling as a matter
ureiy 0! public convenience. What
aenied them by high license 10 the
rivilege of creating demand for in
oxicants In order to supplyit. Where
mere Is saloon on every corner and
here various artifices are resorted to
create the alcoholic thirst, drunken>
ess is SO ineret sed that public opinion.
self corrupted In the process, cannot
old 1t in check. We would bring it
'fthin the limits of a natural demand.
nd We would not allow il to exceed
hose limits. We believe the evils of
could then be dealt with
y common seEse"--that is. by public
pinion, the common consent OF rae
omD unity agreeing IS To what -
ight and what is wrong. Though
may be the will of the ma
,rity IL cannot succeed where the
ense..of the community is not common
a regard to it. This Is the answer to
he question ofexpsdiency, and though
n individual may be just In surren-
e.ioa personal qualification to what
.e oonceives to be the common veal.
Ie is not just in attempting 10 force
theirs to initiate him. He Is uncom-
nonIy just when hs surrenders his
wn right; he lacks common justice IL
e attempts 10 force Others to surren-
er theiE1.
Briefly, then. the RepHbfic has al
=. 80. .,rchibitfnn a rnnffor
principle, believing that prohibition