Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-08-27

mentality OF God. He has establ.shed
! me law Of that kingdom. ana 1t stands
independent OF any state and does
not ana canot depend upon the punv
arm OF man, and that Is what states.
lieve.
| Now, fellow citizens. we have been
! told that the courts of Texas and the
| United States have said that iegIaias
ton of this kind was unconstitutionai
We never doubted for moment lis
constitutionality. The local option In q,
does not violate the constitution az
your state nor the constitution of the
United states. Now, because your leg
islature has the right to control your
internal anairs under the police power
OF the state, the legislature has the
right, whether supported by sufficient
reason or not, to pass local option.
law. Nobody questions that, and when
TINS question goes before the supreme
court OF the state OF Texas, they saw
we are not to pass upon whether this
was originally right or not. 1t is a
question Tor the people to settle
through their legislatures, and having
settled 1t one way It must stand. and
When the question comes up before the
supreme court OF the United statea
they say that It IL a question with
which the congress OF the United
states has nothing to do; 1t has no
business up here. and we therefore
send II back; under the constitution of
the United States we cannot Interfere
with the Internal affairs OF the states.
Each state must settle the question
Tor itself; the supreme court of the
state says the people must settle II
for themselves. These courts do not
say II Is right or wrong, they simply
say you have the power under the CON
sutution TO 30 Into that territory II
you want to, and that is all IL does
say. Now, gentlemen, In the 10Th
TeNas courts of criminal appeals We
nave the Lynn case, In which 1t is de-
cided that the local option law is con-
stitutonal. As / have stated before,
nobody ever doubted that, but the
court of appeals doesn't say that the
law was originally right, or that II
was the best for the people TO pass
such a law; but having passed It, they
had the right, and therefore 1t should
stand. Judge Wilson, in the Lynn
case. while he held the local option
law to be constitutional, intlmated very
strongly that II the original proposition
had been addressed to him, he would
hold otherwise. Now. gentlemen. when
We want to get at a great question u
this kind, to whom do we turn To
the men who have made these ques-
lions life study-men who have writ
ten books upon different law subjects
and whose works are authority In all
the courts OF the country-or should
we go to men engaged In other pro-
LESSONS. whose minds are directed in
other channels, paying no particular
attention TO law and the elementary
principles OF legislation; should we go
to them for information rather than to
men who have made these questions
life studyY Now. l hold in my hand
Mr. Bishops work on Statutory
Crimes, Mr. Bishop was n nable jurist,
who wrote many works upon the law,
was gentleman of pure and lofty
character, His books are considered
authority in the courts OF our country.
Now what does Mr. Bishop say upon
this question? He says that when he
was a young man he was on the COM
mlttee that drafted the first prohibit
tory liquor law ever introduced Into the
legislature OF any state in this Union.
That was the legislature of Massachu-
sets. That at the time he firmly be-
lleved he was right, but after thirty
five years thinking upon such laws and
watching their operation, he says these
words in giving a history OF such laws!
Bisop on Statutory Crimes, page $40;
ITO make the offense TO consist Of SELL
ing Intoxicating liquor without regard
to place or circumstances was a Wide
Nv pal AAlF lAbbA ApAAlNl AfhAAlaAAlNH
which was to prevent tipping houses"
Mr.. Homan, In his address at Fort
Worth, said It was a question of sa-
loon or no saloon MIR. Bishop says 1t
was a wide departure from saloon or
no saloon, from idleness or no idle
ness. from crime or no crime, Now. af-
ter giving the committees reasons for
introducing the prohibltory liquor law
in the Massachusetts legislature. which
were in substance the same as are now
offered by our pro. friends for this
local option law, Mr.. Bishop says: Now
as every body is aware. while large
classes Of people hold this opinion of
alcohol as a beverage. others do not,
and II Is reasonabl to inquire whether
when they OF the affirmative become
the majority in the state 1t Is within
the rightful province OF legislation who
furnish to the majority what they
deem essential to their health and hap
piness or otherwise expressed, whether
Il is the proper function OF a govern
ment TO deny to sane and grown up
people the privilege OF drinking In pri-
vate what the majority deemed to be
or what truly is harmful. This sort OF
question has agltated the world in all
ages whereof history has enlightened
US.
"The view OF II which this commitetee
maintained and which has controlled
all the legislative bodies that have
adopted the measure Is venerable with
years In former times it was well
nigh universal One illustration Is in
the rule which has been exercised over
religious belief, There Is no woe POSI-
Bile to man comparable to eternal dam
nation in the world to come and gov
ernments urged by public sentiment
which never doubted that without GER
tain religious dogmas n man can be
saved, have forbidden the rejection of
them and visited the wrong thinkers
with the heaviest penalties. But over
seas OF blood thus shed the world has
paused and thought, the result OF |
which has been that by almost univer-
sal consent men are now permitted |
Of conceded right TO make secure to
themselves the damnatlon OF the future |
life II they will. Yet still there remains
a powerful public sentiment which |
urges the the governments to compel |
people to do what their own private |
require as pertaining to this
life, For example in England and |
many of our states gnere are statutes /
and in other states there Is n constant |
rlamor to have statutes enacted yir-
tually forcing all sick persons to em-
pioy the sort of medical assistance OF
which the majority approve. Now In /
opposition to all this there is another
view IL is submitted is the true one.
namely that every man IL born with
the inalienable right. the full exercise I
whereof is simply to be deferred until
he reaches the age OF majority to damn
himself both for this world and the
world 10 come II Is believed that the
r,aLar boa committed TO each one. not