The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-09-26
INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.

| New York this year turns on the ques-
ton of personal liberty" Senator
Hill has exposed the old-time and
abiding Democratic doctrine enunciat-.
ed by Thomas Jefferson, of the largest
individual liberty consistent with the
public welfare, and that the best form
! of government is that which governs
/ least. This is set forth at the present
| juncture, in opposition to the position
taken by the Republican state con-
vention in support of the puritanical
Sunday laws and against the principle
Of local option.
The Sunday laws as now attempted
to be literally enforced in New York
are thus epitomized by the World:
They make it misdemeanor to sell
on Sunday Bible or a breviary or
prayer-book or a copy of Thomas
a-Kempiss Limitation of Christ
They make it a penal act to black
shoes on Sunday or for a barber to
shave anybody on that day except
and the exception is an absudrlty-
before 1 o'clock in New York City and
Saratoga.
They prohibit Sunday fishing. They
| impose a penalty upon the letting of
boats or carriages for pleasure pur-
poses on that day. Strictly construed
and Republican officials insist upon
strict construction-they forbid the
cooking of hot dinners on Sunday.
! One Of our magistrates has ruled that
they forbid any gentleman even to
give wine to his guests with their
dinner On the first day of the week
| They permit a druggist to sell cigars
| h1,+ hi ~ call q GLASS of soda
water or vichy. They make 1t a penal
offense to supply ice to family or to
! furnish a salad from a delicatessen
shop for a Sunday evening tea.
In word, these laws are in fragrant
violation of the fundamental idea Of
our system. They are tyrannical in
an intolerable degree. They Interfere
unbearably with personal liberty.
They invade and trample upon the
| personal rights of every citizen.
Senator Hill, while a total abstainer
himself and a believer in Sunday as a
day of rest and religious observance,
respects the opinions and habits of
others and the right of each locality to
regulate these customs for themselves.
He contends that this is a govern
ment the fundamental principle Of
which is individual freedom, a gov
eminent where personal tastes, habits
and customs cannot be regulated ex-
cept where they trespass upon the
rights of others. a government where
there is no established religion-where
the observance of Sunday is not a
matter of constitutional requirement,
but is merely subject of regulation
by state or local law, to be controlled
only 80 far as may be actually neces-
sary for the preservation of good
order and the maintenance of the in
dividual rights of all the people.
He says on this question::
Entertaining these views of the ma
ture Of our government, I have always
opposed, and the Democratic party has
always resisted, the enactment of all
legislation unnecessarily infringing
upon personal rights, all unjust sump-
! tuary legislation, all puritanical Sun
day laws, and all paternal measures
based upon the false doctrine that the
law should regulate all human affairs
and that men should be controlled for
their own good as to what and when
they shall eat and drink, how much
of their own money they should spend.
I -
q day of rest or recreation, whether
they should attend church or other
wise, and what time they should re-
tire at night All these are individual
matters beyond legislative interference,
and must be addressed to the discre-
ton, good sense and voluntary action
of each individual
That is sound, undiluted Democratic
doctrine. Individual liberty to the limit
Of the rights of others is the liberty Of
just and constitutional law. 1t is in
opposition to that parernalism which
is comprehended in Republicanism, and
which is subversive of personal free
dom.
The attempt is made to construe the
Democratic position in New York as
favorable to the Sunday liquor traffic.
1t is in reality a contention for the
right of the people in the cities and
towns of that state to regulate this
matter according to the popular will
in each locality. 1t is a local option
fight. 1t turns on the right of local
government. Tt is a "home rule"
question. The local public sentiment
is invoked in support of the local regu-
lation, and that ought to govern and
is likely to prevail anyhow, if an I'm
popular state law is forced upon any
division Of the state in which there
is a large majority against it.
Just now there are. cities in the state
where it is being enforced, and in
others where it is being f1agrantIy vio-
lated with the connivance of public Of
ficials. 1t is claimed that these laws
have been the cause of bIackmail. hv-
pocrisy and false pretence a sneaking
violation of official oaths and much
evil in many ways
1t is now a square issue between the
two parties, whether the present puri-
tanical excise laws of the state shall
be forced upon every part of it or local
option shall be established; whether
the Republican puritanical idea that
the state shall regulate the personal
habits of the people, or the Democratic
principle of individual liberty which
does not interfere with the liberty of
others, shall prevail in the great state
of New York.
POPULAR NOMINATION OF SEN
ATORS.
The Ogden convention did a viee