The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-02-22
IS IT rRAcrrcABLB AND FA1ns

ton" although the gentleman takes
issue with The Herald on this import
ant question There are two sides to
1t. and we have had something to say
on one side in reply to what he has
said on the other.
Perhaps it would be more conducive
to the maintenance OF the pleasant re-
latiOnS between him and The Herald.
if he would avoid incorporate ex-
pressions Oh this temperance question.
The Herald has INDUCED in no
"sophistries,' as asserted by the
gentleman, but has presented it's side
OF the subject according to its conyic-
tions, giving him full credit for equal
sincerity.
Nor do we perceive wherein he has
"refuted" any argument of The Her
aids, Commencing with the assertion
that, Prohibition IS not 81 sumptuary
law" and following 1t up with the
claim that "Prohibitory laws are no
more surnptuary than laws which
punish an individual for being drunk
and disorderly," he almost provokes us
TO retaliate with his own term
9opAiSliS' Out we WlA IOrDear.
Here is what he and his associates
propose:
10 person, association or corporation
shah. within this state. manufacture
Tor sale, or gift, as a beverage, any
intoxicating liquors, and no person
| association or corporation shah i'm
! port any of the same for sale Or gift,
Tor sell or offer or keep the same for
sale, or gift, or barter or trade as a
/ beverage.
Now what is a beverage" Is it not
something to drink? Well, what is a.
sumptuary law? Is it not a law in
restraint OF food, or drink or dress +?
Why bubble over terms? a law
which seeks to prevent the use Of
anything as a beverage is a sumptu-
airy law. And while it may be argued
that it is not the use, but the sale or
! gift of the article, that it to be pro
hibited, the effect intended is to pre-
vent people from having facilities to
| that use. Would it not be sophistry
to contend to the contrary?
The difference between a law to
! prevent people from buying little
wine, or stronger drink if they desire
| it, and one to punish a person for be-
| ing drunk and disorderly, is so clear
and wide that we are surprised a sane
man would confound the two In buy
ing and drinking a glass of wine, or
! beer, or liquor. a man does not inter-
fere with another's right. When he
[ becomes intoxicated and disorderly he
! does interfere with the rights Of So
[ ~, -
punished.
Next, as to the matter of municipal
control of the liquor question. If it is
! a fact that it is usual, except in pro-
! hibition states, which are rarities in
! this country, TO bestow that power
upon the respective cities, that sus-
| tains our proposition We are quite
willing for our correspondent to hold
| his views as to The state as the
unit of government" but the fact re-
mains that each county and each city
in every state is an entity, unit to
make up the sum Of the state, which
in the aggregate forms the unit in the
national system.
The remainder Of the letter is de-
voted to the question Of the inter-
| state commerce law and the amend
ment said to have been made to it in
! 1890, which there is no need to dis
/ cuss except as to its effects on the
main question Granting, merely for
arguments sake, that all the state
ments of the gentleman are correct
as to the amendment and the de-
cisions on it, what do they amount to ?
Why, just what we claimed; that is,
you cannot stop the importation OF
original packages of tntoXicants into
the state under the provisions of that
law. That he calls "a grave error
and then admits that it is correct!
The amendment to which he refers
and which he quotes, does not keep
out the intoxfcants from the state, but
makes them ''amenable to the laws OF
the state after their entry. Can he not
see that this very law supports what
we claimed. and which he calls "a
grave error?" Our point was that in
toAicants might be brought in from sur
! rounding states and territories, which
would reap the benefits of the license
laws. BY crossing the line of Utah in
either direction or ordering packages
from over the border, people within
I the state could get all they wanted
for a beverage without penalty, pro-
vided they did not get it to sell or
give away.
The idea that a man who keeps such
| stimulants in his house for his own
use must not give any to his friends
without being liable to prosecution as
for crime, is one of those preposter-
Gus things that are associated with the
movement. We understand that the
purpose in view is the abolition Of the
saloon. We do not wish to be placed
in the false position Of advocating the
saloon or as in favor of the liquor
traffic. We are In favor Of such res
friction as is practicable and believe
that such regulation alone is practi-
cable which receives the support of the
i majority Of the people in q given To-
Cality.
We favor the local option principle
which ne have advocated, because we
believe in local self-goVernment, and
the largest liberty possible to the in
diVidual consistent with the rights
and liberties Of the community There
are counties and cities in Utah where
the large majority Of the people favor
the suppression of the liquor traffic.
Local option will give them the power
to carry out the viii of the people. In
Salt Lake city prohibition would be a
dead letter. except as to the open sale
of fntoXicants, The drug store and the