The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-01-28
Tufts Pills i 1:
Cure All
Liver lis.
save Your Money.
One boxof TUFTS Pills Wlllsavc
many dollars in doctors bills
Theywills relycure all diseases
ofehe stomach, liver or bowels
No Reckless Assertion
For sick headache, dyspepsia,
malaria, constipation and b'llo-
usness, amilIion people endorse
TUFTS Liver PILLS

making men more moral. as 1t undoubt-
edIy will, that should not be used as an
argument against it.
You say in support OF your position
"eyery man must be free to act as no
will and do as he will with his own, so
long as he does not trespass upon the
rights of Others" This is the position
OF the prohibitionists stated to nicely
Individual liberty of action n'ust be per-
feet SO long as it does not Inch upon
the rights of others. Society was pri-
marily organized around this principle.
but 1t has ever and properly held that
when Individual liberty becomes public
nuisance it must be restrained; the latter
principle is as important as the former.
possibly more So n man may stretch out
his hands in any direction and as forci-
bly, as he pleases, as a matter OF indi-
vidual liberty: but when he pushes his
cienched fist forcibly against his neigh
boris nose. the law steps in TO restrain his
Individual liberty In the interest OF So
ciety. A boy may throw bushels of rocks
as a matter or personal liberty. and may
call upon all the powers of the law to
protect him in the exercise of this liberty.
but when he throws the rocks In 4
crowded city street, where persons arc
liable to be injured or property damaged.
the law quickly steps in with It's prohi-
bition.
You say that you believe in freedom OF
trade Yes, but trade is a public act and
the law justly claims the right to regulate
trade even to the prohibition of II. y
powder mill may not be located In a pop
ulous community. neither may a tan
yard one entiansers life and property, tho
other public comfort. a butcher starts
to selling horse steaks to his customers.
The horse was his own and he may do
what ne pleases with it. Nay, not so. in
Difference to public sentiment. the law
lays its hands upon the butcher, his meat
is conilscated and destroyed and he is
muict in a Ene.
Thus we see that in it's province OF
protecting life, property, public health
and in Difference to moral sentiment the
law hesitates not a moment to pru.toie
trade and TO punish the tradesrnan.
The Supreme Court of the United States
has spoken with unusual cIearness on
this subject In California VS. Christian
sen, the Supreme Court says. There Is
no inherent right in u citizen to sci! in
toxicating liquors by retail: it IS not q
privilege of a citizen of a State. or OF u
citizen OF the United States. In the
case of Stone VS.. Mississippi the same
court SAYS "No Legislat ure can bargain
away the public health Or the public
morals The people themselves cannot do
it, much less their servants. Government
is organized with Il view to their pre-
servation, and cannot divest itself of tho
power to provide for them
In the Kansas City case the Supreme
Court says: I'VE cannot shut out OF
view the fact, Within the knowledge OF
all, that The public health, the public
morals and the pubic safety may be
endangered by the general use of intoNt-
eating drinks; nor the fact established by
statistics accessible to every one, tia t the
disorder, pauperism and crime prevalent
In the country are to some degree at
least traceabfe to this eviP ithe liquor
traffic) Again in California VS.. Chris
Hansen: THE statistics OF every State
show a greater amount OF crime and
misery attributable to the use OF ardent
spirits obtained at these recall liquor
saloons than to any other source"
These are not the intemcerate utter
ances of Prohibition orators, but tho
solemn and deliberate judgments OF the
Supreme Court.
Mr. Editor, would it not be vel! for
you to examine your position again?
J. o. ATWOOD,
secy. Prohibition. State Committee.
Richmond, Va. Jan. 18th.