Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1900-04-20
Reply to Mr.. Lamar.

Mr. Editor In your paper of last week,
10 his article on the local option law, Mr.. W.
H. Lamar lays himself open, or lays his argu-
ment open, 10 be punctured In quite mum
Der of places ! ask you for shorter spa o
than was given TO him TO make reply
He says 1.-The principal forces which led to
the adoption OF the present local option law
10 Montgomery county we're in general way,
"First, the temperance people who thought
that no one had moral RICH, TO sell or drink
intoxicating liquors" Evidently in this AS
sumption he proposes to class temperance
people as those who are trying to deprive
some one of a moral right. And he further,
evidently assumes, that there is a moral right
to sell or drink intoxicating liquors Now here
are two errors in the very beginning oil his
argument, and ! hope all our citizens will
give this point careful attention | want TO
show him and them that the temperance peo-
pie are not the only persons who believe
that man has no moral right to sell intOKi-
eating liquors 10 the community 10 which
they live.
| will introduce that point oy quoting
from Mr. Justice Lamar ian honorable rela-
tive OF our Mr.. Lansr) who delivered the
opinion Of the U. ) Supreme Court in Kidd
vs. Pearson, who said "the Court decides that
q State has a right to prohibit or restrict the
VI huu bhlt ANU IhiiC III
eating liquors within her limits, and to pro-
vide regulations for The abatement as COM
mon nuisance Of the property used for such
forbidden purposes Here is q classification
OF the business that ought to settle the ques-
lion as to the moral rights, for no man has
a moral or any other kind OF a right to en-
gage 10 business that 10 cOmno nuisance9
Mr.. Justice Harlan handed down an opinion
Of the same Court 10 Mugler vs. Kansas, ia
which he says "There is ne Justification for
holding that the Stale under the guise merely
OF police regulations, Is here aiming 10 de-
prive the citizen o. his constitutional rights,
Tor we cannot shut out OF view, the fact,
within the know edge of all, that public
health, the public morals and the public
safety may be endangered by the general use
Of intoxicating drinks" What moral right
then has man to sell that indiscrininately
10 the community which endangers the COM
munty2
Mr.. Justice Miller 10 another decision, Met
ter vs.. Ammon, says, "By common consent
the liquor traffic is freighted with peril to
the general welfare"
Another judicial pronouncement Of the U.
Supreme Court is, "There is no inherent
right TO thus sell Intoxicating liquors by re-
tail II is not the right OF q citizen OF the
United States or Of any State"
Mr.. W. II. Lamar will doubtless appreciate
a court decision from his owh State. The
District Court Of Georgia in re Hoover takes
this position where the political power Of
State for the safety Of its people takes the re-
sponsibility of saying that certain Occupa-
| lions are hui tful and will not be permitted in
It's bou ndaries, unless that declaration is so
unreasonable as TO be outside the domain OF
law, the occupation 30 stigmatized 10 no
longer q right, privilege or immunity within
the meaning of the Constitution" This de-
csion closes as follows 1.-THE particular leg
islation before the court affecting as II II does
the rural communities of the State was Of su-
preme necessity and Of supreme reasonable
ness. In the cities the law 10 presu med TO be
present in the persons Of It's municipal Off GERS
and It's police force The brutal excuses Of
ungovernable aud dangerous men, when in
famed with drink, may be there readily re.
pressed and the perpetrators punished. ltia
otherwise 10 the sparsely settled neighbor
hoods where the farmers and their wives and
children pursue the even tenor Of their way
The cross roads grOggery was the bane OF ouI
civilization. A simple. artless and indus
trious population inhamed and enervated will
drink, became worthless As laborers, ire