Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1900-05-04
The Local Qntion Law.

III al open uisCuSslOn IL IL lusl aS v 4 Tor
the public to know who Nv. G" reA Y Is.
The general nature of Mr.. ChJste's fer
ences TO the people who are adyocel AZ a
change in the local option lav sud hA osr'
sonal reference to me, are ca. gr 'ated ! II
spire reply in kind, which nj ht giv9 d
license to continue to dodge the quos.it =
he has already done, and raise fog through
which TO escape fair and honest argument.
will therefore try TO occupy the space al
lotted me In hauling him up to the scratch
and making him toe the line for fair en-
counter. The public has already observed
the blows he has aimed below the belt and
other attempted fouls, and will visit its just
condemnation upon him, although he may
plead the baby act or claim that any kind OF
a game is fair for champion OF so worthy
cause. In my first article, without intending
offense to any one, briefly presented the
facts as | understood them In relation to the
adoption OF the present law and the evils in
cident TO its operation, and without express
ing preference for any particular method
oil overcoming the evils enumerated, invited
suggestions from, and discussions by all good
citizens, so that consensus OF opinion
might be had. One may twist II as he may,
but the article can mean nothing more in
the eyes of any fair minded man. But what
about "W. or He first seizes upon an in
troductory statement, the truth OF which he
does not deny in any way, and uses 1t for
the double purpose OF avoiding the Issues
actually presented and OF misleading high
ly respected class of citizens into the belief
that they were being treated by me las
though they were erratics or fanatics" In
doing this he drags In number OF court de-
cisiops which, while perfectly correct and
proper in themselves, have nothing to do
with the particular phase of the matters pre-.
sented. These decisions were rendered in
cases brought to test the constitutionality Of
the local option laws of several States The
liquor dealers claiming on the one hand that
such State laws abridged the rights of citi-
zens guaranteed by the Federal Consttu-
ton, viz: To conduct their traffic in intoxi
cants as they might do In any other line If
business On the other hand, the represen-
tatives Of the States, while admitting the
right of every citizen to engagein whatever
legitimate business he might elect, not even
excepting the liquor business, claimed that
there were such evils incident to such traffic
In certain communities and under certain
else of their police powers TO prohibit or
limit the sale OF intoxicants. And this con
tention the courts sustained.
Under the same section OF the Constitu-
ton, the State of Louisiana adopted law
which prevented the slaughter oil beef cat
tie, except at specified places, on account of
the menace to public health In particular
locality. The Supreme Court held that In
the exercise of its police power such law
was constitutional. Can such decision be
construed TO mean that man "has no inhe
rent or moral or vested or natural right" to
slaughter beef cattle and that "the only right
he can get TO do so is such limited and re-
strained legal right as may be given by some
license law"p And yet that Is exactly what
"W. @. 3" contention amounts TO- For from
the ~ biblical times when the patriarchs
81 tod heir homes, planted their vine
yards snd made wine, taking care To put
nsw wine n"new bottles" only, the inherent
figlt ~ an to make or sell intoxcants has
heeG rec nized by all nations as equal to the
right b 70, slaughter or sell beef cattle.
Within certain bounds the moral right to
make soil and consume intoxicants can not
10 quest pne |, even by Mr.. Choate; for ex
ample IS ni per use az a medicine and the
90 l.mani lrist himself made wine out of
wafer az erage for the guests at mar
hage sast. Thatever immoral feature can
b. ciaimet Incident TO its sale or con
l5a ,from its Improper or iltem
pOTsle use. T. will ad nit such improper
lN OF intoXic. ts to be widespread, and the
70 .ons temper nee movements have been
~ 90 loot % o. atrol or check II. But peo-
pc, and even mi listers of the gospel, differ
8 - what o. 49, 5utes such improper use.
IL The eyes o he law, however, as we
81 from great many decisions OF the
% ar,s, u is pur0'y matter Of police Fegula
tpa. pbs peol { any community have
Vie fight v regU the sale by high or low
licspss by sp9si system, or by absolute
Sroh . 90, and in doing 30 may even
aDridge the undisputed moral right TO sell
intoxicants for purely medical or sacra
mental purposes. To pass q law which is
Is one thing, to adopt one |
that affords the best police protection and
can be best enforced is another. No one
denies the constitutional right of the State |
Of Maryland TO adopt our present local OPP.
ton law The decisions cited by"W. u"
are In the abstract equally applicable 10
high license as they are pro
hibitory law. And If the first should afford
a greater measure of police protection or the
same protection at less expense, or Is accom-.
panied by fewer evils TO society, then those
same decisions can 90 oited with greater
force in support Of high license system
than the other. Which OF the several sys-
LtIIlb Luhb uhNC uCCu bllCut VI w ouB
gested, will best subserve the public interests
as a police measure In our particular county,
ls the question for the people 10 consider 30
far as legal propositions are concerned. But
this is lust where Nv. G." dodges-he will |
not come up fairly and discuss the question,
but, among other things, tries TO make II ap
pear that have taken position in favor OF
some particular system, and that TOO az a
OF the whskey dealers, when
he knows that In neither OF my articles on |
this subject have | advocated any particular
measure as substitute for the present law.
On the contrary, In the very article he was
said: "In presenting the fore
going desire II 10 be distinctly understood |
that II Is a mere statement Of facts and con
ditions and Eot intended az an argument 10 |
favor of any particular form Of law TO take |
the place Of the present one. II may be
possible 10 change the present law 90 as W |
eliminate the evils recited or an entirely |
new one may be required 10 accomplish |
that result, but that these evils should be |
eliminated from our system and the time Tor |
the people 10 consider the question has ar
rived, | think cannot be doubted"
IL Is true that Ia an effort TO have the vari
GUS systems considered have called atten
ton 10 certain provisions Of high license |
laws Which bcbtubu W ONCICDuC "a
isting evils, but | have not claimed that
those evils could DO overcome by such meas
ures only. On the contrary, have tried
70 elicit Information as TO other measures
which would afford the relief sought, but
Nv. c." accommodates Us by talking abut |
something else, stirring up mud and making |
personal insinuations. He wants 10 know
II were under oath would give the facts.
What has this 10 do with the case2 | am |
only one man SO suppose possessed infor-
nation upon which could indict every whs.
key seller In the county and did 80, would
that break up a single place Of the kind or
reduce the evils OF the present systemP II
might cause more fines 10 be paid for one
term Of court only, and TO some extent re-
leve the liquor mems minds with the re
Election that they had thus paid an indirect
license or tax"
will say that have no interest In any
manner, shape or form in the whiskey busi-
ness or any one engaged In II that am
not and have not been their attorney; and