The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1894-02-07

what means should Roman citizen
gain his livelihood, if we take their
trade outs of their handsy" Upon
which Montesquieu, Esprit ofLaws,
Vol 4, J, Cbapter: 10, Boek22, says
'eHe might have added, who shall set
the bounds to us if we monopolize
all to ourselves, who shall compel us
to fulfill our engagements 2"
For the government to seize on q
trade and monopolize it is an invasion
Of the right of citizen, says Politi-
cal Economy, p. l0S
The character Of sovereign and
trader is inconsistent. Adam Smiths
Wealth of Nations. 3 vol. 357.
Under the Declaration Of lndepen
dence one of the enumerated rights
was the 1trade" of the subject. and
one of the enumerated grievances was
"the cutting off our trade with the
world" For this the king was de-
nounced as for ab "usurpation." J"
The remedy and the object of the
Government founded by the Ameri.
can fathers, as stated in the Declara.
ton of independence, was the "fur.
ther security" of this right. See
Declaration of independence see
III u. S.. ISL, 1853; 16 Wall, 102,
los, Il9, l20.
This question as to whether State
has the right to monopolize and en-
gage ia a trade where it is denied to
the individual, has occurred only once
in the history Of this country, and it
was the State of Indiana attempted
to do with the liquor trade exactly
what the State of South Carolina has
by it's Legislature, attempted to do
in this case, that is, to engage in and
monopo'ize the business, and conduct
it with the public funds, through its
officers and agents, taking its profits
for the State. county and city. And
this attempt was decided by. the Su-
preme Court of Indiana as unconsti.
tutional, null and void And since
that time Indiana has, like the other
Western States, made. and now
makes, full exercise of her police
power over the liquor trade in most
drastic measures of regulation, super.
vision and restriction, but she has
never since attempted, az no other
State has ever attempted to repeat,
the engaging in and. the conduct Of
this trade monopolized by herself.
See State VS.. Beebe, 6 Ind SOL.
Of the officers of the State selling
liquor the Court says: They con.
stitute no part of the people engaged
in the business on their own account,
but are appointed under the law by
the county commissioners, supplied
with funds from the county treasury,
and paid compeusatlon for their
services by the county; sell at prices
fixed for them make the profits and
losses of the business for the public
treasury, and not for themselves"
The Court further says. elf the
manufacture and sale of these articles
are proper to be carried on in the
State for any purpose it is not CON-
petent for the Government to take
the business from the people and
monopolize it The Government can
not turn druggist and become the
sole dealer in medicines in this
State !"
"And why? Because the business
was at and before the organization OF
the Government, and is properly, at
all times. private pursuit of the
people, as much as the manufacture
and sale of brooms, tobacco. clothes.
and the dealing in tea, coffee apd
rice, and the raising of potatoes.
And the Government was organized
to Protect the people in such pursuits
from the depredations of powerful
and lawless individuals, the barons
of the middle ages, whom they were
too weak to resist by force. "
ssAnd for the Government now 10
seize upon these pursuits is subver-
sive of the very objects for which it
was created, and is inconsistent with
the right of private property in and
pursuit by the citizens"
And the Court declared the whole
system of State liquor trading un-
constitutional, null and void.
PROPOSITION SECOND.
The State cannot go into trade be-
cause 1t IS opposed to the aohole system
of finance and taxation, 4" as set forth
IN Article 9 of the Constitution, 'ohtch
Is the financial policy Of the State, and
which has adopted taratio@ as the
affirmative system Of raising the reoe-