The Newtown bee., 1905-02-24
everything desirable in these lines cll be found in variety.
SOCIAL TOPICS.
DRINKER'S LICENsE.-BY o. c. WRIGHT.

WRIGHT.
 A few years ago, Michigan legisla- tor introduced a bill which provided for the licensing of all drinkers of in- toxicating liquors within that con- monwealth. According to his scheme the licenses were tG be issued by the municipality or township, at S5 per license, the names of all citizens talk ing them out were to be published: and the bartenders must require each customer to produce his license, every time, before selling him his drink.
 What became of this proposed law l have never heard. But there is an idea in it which seems to me to be wor- thy of our serious consideration. This is the theory of "The Hon Peter Ster- ling" in very interesting book by Paul Leicester Ford, bearing that name. Peter says that: "So long as a man drinks in such way as not to in- terfere with another persons liberty we have no right to check him. But the moment he does, the public has a right to protect itself and his family, by restraining him, as it does thieves, or murderers, or wife-beaters. My idea is, that license, something like dog license, should be given to everyone who applies for it; and that before man can have drink, he must show this license. Then if a man is before the police-court a secOud time for drunkenness, or his family petition for it, his license shall be cancelled, and a heavy fine incurred by any one who sells or gives that man a drink there- after"
 Some such plan as that would tend to fix the personal responsibility for abuse where it belongs, on the man who drinks. Responsibility is prima- rily personal matter. The individual is responsible to God, to society, and to the State. The citizen is a primary factor. Citizens make the State. Law has to do with persons. We have to deal with evil in the concrete, and not simply in the abstract.
 When Jones gets drunk, it is not the whiskey he drinks thatis to be blamed for it; the barrel that holds the whis- key is not to blame, surely; the man who made the whiskey is not to blame, for how could he know that Jones would swallow it for the pleasure of intoxication; the man who raised the grain and sold it in the common mar ket is not to blame that his rye or bar ley went to the malt-house or distil lery, and so became whiskey: it is pos sible that no one of all who had any thing to do with the whiskey on which Jones got drunk was personally to blame; but one thing is without any question, Jones, inasmuch as he poured the whiskey down his own throat, of his own free will, is to blame for being drunk, and ought to suffer the conse- quences. First of all, then, the man who abuses whiskey, or any other in- toxicant is responsible for the abuse.
 Some good people have only sympa- thy for the miserable sot; but swear eternal vengeance upon the rum seller. Others would lay all the blame on the manufacturer. Some put all the re- sponsibility upon the State and i'm agine that somehow the evils of drunk enness might be legislated out of ex- istence. Many are given to upbraiding the Church, as though, Christians might, if they would, prevent the whole business. There is great deal of superfuous and silly talk on this great, difficult subject. Still it seems to be rather a simple matter when we really take the facts of the case and try them by the principles involved. There would be no intoxicants for sale if there were none to drink them; there would be none manufactured should there be no sale for them; there would be no grain raised for the malt-houses, if there was no malting to be done. And finally, if the AL mighty Father had not created any thing that could be made into ale, beer, cider, wine, whiskey, or any other in- toxicating drink, probably there would never have been a prohibitionist.
 George Winton was in Roxbury, Sun