Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-04-21
FROM A LEGAL POINT.
An Attorney Discusses Prohibition
From a Legal Standpoint, at
sLATER'S RINK, MT. WASHINGTON.
The Very Interesting Arguments Of
Harvey Henderson, Esq.
OTHER SHORT ADDRESSES ARE MADE

A Constitutional amendment meeting was
held last evening in Slater's Rink, Mt.
Washington. The attendance was not very
large, and the speakers were interrupted
several times by the noisy applauding of a
number of boys. Meetings are to be held
regularly in this rink until after next June.
Harvey Henderson, Esq, discussed the
question from legal standpoint last even
ing. His arguments are but rarely touched
upon in the debate on this question, and
were forcib1y given.
The speaker stated that in the first laws
ever made for this State, which were known
as the Duke of York's laws, issued in 1864,
that the sale of liquor in the Commonwealth
would only be permitted after a license was
obtained by the king. Ever since that
date the Government has legislated upon
the liquor traffic in some form or other up to
the present time. Continuing, the speaker
said:
PRACTICAL PROHIBITION NOW.
The present Brooks law permits about 800
licenses to be issued in Allegheny county.
There are certain conditions in these licenses
which liquor sellers must obey. They cannot
sell to minors or on the Sabbath day. They do
not object TO these conditions but acknowledge
that the traffic must be regulated by law. Out
side of these 800 men the county has practical
prohibition. Every man is not permitted to
sell liquor. He will be prosecuted if he is dis
covered doing so without a license. Now what
we want is to legislate out of existence this
favored 800, who enjoy monopoly of business.
A monopoly is created by these laws which is
an outrage on the rights of American CITIZEN
ship.
Personal liberty is a strong argument used by
the liquor dealers. Man owes his existence and
his sustenance to society and therefore owes
society duty. He cannot do as he pleases in
many cases. If he attempts it he will be
checked by the law. Then why is it that this
cry of personal liberty is made only in the
practice of drinking intoxicating liquors and
not in other cases where his supposed rights
are imposed upon.
EASY TO SELL OUT IN A YEAR.
Another argument used is who shall compen-
safe the liquor dealer and maker2 The former
possesses, perhaps, only few barrels Of liquor,
and he can sell that of before the amendment
becomes law, which It is not likely to do. if
adopted. until May l, 1890.
The dealers will lose all, but never in the his
tory of this State has a man been compensated
for the loss of his property when law has been
made whereby his business is DESTROYED. A
man owns q soap factory in the heart of the
city. The law says he must remove it. He re-
ceives no compensation. Two years ago the
manufacture Of oleomargarine was declared il
legal. The State did not pay the manufactur-
ers for their losses.
The brewers will not lose much. Water is
cheap, and this, in connection with a few in
gradients, formed their stock in trade. The
liquor they sold at an enormous profit.
Major Samuel Harper was i'll, and Elder
Joseph Cheaney, of Texas, and others made
few remarks upon the liquor traffic and its
results.