Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1907-04-01

to man in every relation in life, is
his supreme infallible written constitu-
tional law TO guide and govern him in
all those relationships and duties
individual, social (family), ecclesi-
astical and civil.
But God never endowed man with
the ''right" TO do wrong-to violate
his moral law. He could not do SO.
1t is contrary to his holy nature to
do such a thing. There are some
things it is impossible for God" to
do (see Heb. s: Is; Titus 1: p and
this is one of them. God created
man a free agent, but he never en-
dowed. him with the fright TO ain.
He could not do it without doing
| violence to his own nature. And, If
it be possible TO strengthen by argu-
ment that which is automatic, the
conferment upon man of such a right
as this will involve a requirement on
the part of God that pan should
exercise said Fright" as a duty owed
! to God and to his fellow-men, when
circumstances would justify or de-
mand such exercise. Did God ever
make it mans duty to sin-to trans
gress his moral law? How preposter-
Gus the idea! Nay, it will not do.
| The ssright" to violate Coos moral
law in any relationship in life has
never been conferred on man by his
Creator. Said Fright" therefore, is
not to be found among the inherent,
inalienable common law rights or
privileges of citize nship."
But to do that which, as Judge Art
man sc we'll puts it, is dangerous to
public health, public morals and
public SAFELY" is certainly sinfaI-a
violation of the moral law. There
fore God never conferred on man
the right to do it. II follows newt
ably therefore that the judge is
correct in his contention that such
fright" has no existence among the
inherent, inalienable common law
rights and privileges of citizenship"
1t is not possessed by man at. ALL
never was and never can be.
By the preceding have certainly
established clearly that in their indi-
vidual capacities, at least, citizens Of
the commonwealth do not have the
fright" to engage in or in any way
legitimatize any business that is
dangerous to public health, public
morals and public safety" as is the
iniquitous liquor business as licensed
in our land to day. God never en-
dowed them with that "right." If
they can in any way become pos
sessed of Or enjoy such "right' in it's
exercise it must come from some
source outside of themselves, and
apart from God.
Upon pursuing the subject further
We fnd that in our republican form
of COVE rnment, in subsection to the
| authority of the nations God and his
| divine moral law, as in the Bible it is
revealed, elaborated and applied to
nations, the legislature is the creature
of the people, their servant to carry
out their will; and by their authority,
under God and in obedience to his
law, to legislate for the good of the
commonwealth. But the people can
not confer upon their representatives
authority Or power which they them
selves do not possess. AS We have
already intimated, the governmental
authority, the powers Inherent in the
people come from God C'There is no
power but God'-Rom. IS: y and
they are conferred on them to be
exercised in subsection to the author
ity of his moral law, and are 10y that
law, as in his word it is revealed and
applied in the civil realm, defined.
All the powers, rights and privi-
leges thus conferred and defined are
what are designated in this decision
of Judge Artman the inherent com
. mon law rights and privileges o.
citizenship" our God-give,a rights al
citizens. Surely we have already
demonstrated clearly the validity o
V the judges contention, that the RICH
: or privilege on the part of thu cities
}, to carry on or legitimatizs bushes
r that is dangerous to public health
public morals and public safety" is nc
n one of these rights so conferred, because
= as we have ABOVE shown, it is in plat
l. violation of the moral law; and VIVA
. is in violation of the moral law /
% a0rong and God never conferred o.
n man the "right'' 10 do wrong. Con
ia sequently the people cannot COME
upon their representative the RICH
to authorize or license such a busi
10 ness. They cannot delegate to thei
d representatives authority and right
Ia which they do not themselves possess
- The entire liquor business, there
q, fore, as it now prevails, because, a
shown, it is not intrenched in tn
II inherent rights of citiz 9nship as con
forrah of Cn0 iS iItaoal from, har;r