Middletown transcript., 1907-09-07

reply to Mr.. Bayard, / send you portion
OF 1t, and trust you will give il eqnal
prominence. M. 8. Poulson.
Wilmington, August 2lst. 1907.
Mr.. PoULsoN's REPLY
But for the name appended to the
document We could not believe it possible
to have emanated from so learned q
political economist as Mr.. Bayard.
His letter is simply rehash Of dead issues
touching the controversy that has been
vigorously vaged on this subject during
the lifetime of the gentleman himself.
We will quote verbatim from the
letter in question, that the electric light
OF facts and reason may be turned on to
fash aside the plausible errors and reveal
the truth to which the eternal years of
God belong. His prominence in the
country will give bis views on this SUBJ
ject greater weight than they would other
wise possess, and they therefore demand
more than a cursory notice. He says he
s'thinks local option laws Of very doubt
fol constitutionality, and positive mex
pediency." He has as much right to
opinions as anybody else; but when a
matter passes beyond the realm OF opinion,
| and rises to the dignity of accomplished
| fact, it is time for mere opinions to assume
the more tangible form of convictions.
Does anybody nowadays indulge in vague
opinions about the constitutionality OF
the Revolutionary War, or the Declare
ton Of Independence, or the Emancipa-
ton Proclamation Constitutions are
means, not ends. Why may not anything
be constitutional that makes the people
wiser. better, happier? The cry of un.
| constitutionality has been raised every
time since the beginning Of things, when
ever hoary theories and cherished vices
have been assailed by purer civilization.
Shall we venerate a Constitution that
obstructs the welfare of the people, for
/ whose advantage it was made ? Are not
the subjects OF more value than the Con-
situation ? Is it wise, or true, to tell .
suffering community that the Consti-
tuition under which they live will not
allow them to better their condition by
simple method at once practical and
eficient2 Must people be swirled to
ruin because their Constitution makes no
provision for an act of self-preservation
which is said to be the first law OF nature?
Does anybody question the constitu-
tionality OF man shooting on the spot
the highwayman who demands his purse
or his life, or the robber who violently
inyades his house at midnight? I? Why
should it, therefore, be deemed uncon-
stitutional for a community suffering
from lawlessness, disorder, crime, in
sanity, disease and death, to seek redress
by the more orderly means Of legislative
enactments How else is it to be done
Or is it claimed that government OF the
people, by the people, and for the people,
has no relief from the relentless menace
OF wrong-doers? We tear down an honest
mans house, if in our judgement the act
will save the city from destruction by
fire. Is that constitutional ]? We prohibit
licensed drinking saloons from prose-
cutting their legitimate business on election
days. Is that constitutional ? We close
the same places with rude hands in times
of riot. Is that constitutional ? By the
license system we prohibit 40 law-abiding
citizens out Of every so from engaging in
the lucrative trade Of liquor selling. Is
that constitutional? We debar licensed
dealers. in intoxicating drinks the privi-
lege Of selling to our minor children what
they have the purchased right to sell.
Is that constitutional ? Mr.. Bayard
says that ''They local option laws) sub
NIT law to popular vote in local dis
tricts." Where We have not heard of
a single such instance. Nobody would
question the unconstitutionality of such
a process. The local option movement has
been largely conducted by men skilled in
law, who have carefully avoided that Scylla
while they have successfully sailed past
the Charybdis of minor technicalities.
The Local Option statute is perfect law
as it issues from the Legislature, requir-
ing no vote of the people to complete IT,
The citizens do not vote under it on an
abstract question OF law; but as to whether
individuals may engage in the sale Of ar
dent spirits according to law. There are
only two simple shades of difference be-
tween the local option mode and that
under the license system in certain locali-
ties. The latter plan requires recon-
mendation for license from few free
holders OF neighborhood, whose names
must be signed to paper setting forth
their wishes, while the former demands
the favor of majority of the voters ex-
pressed by ballot. Can an unconstitu-
tional feature be discerned in one OF these
methods that does not appear in the
| other
"Inexpedient." Mr.. Bayard is doubt.
less speaking along the line Of modern
political order. Otherwise bis wisdom
would readily comprehend the ethical
fact that right thing is always exped-
lent. Inexpediency cannot, of course,
be allowed to lie across the path over
which personal conscience travels Duties
never clash. The right thing must be
done Through the heavens FALL" Ex-
pendiency is,therefore, only to be tolerated
as to the question Of ways by which ends
| are to be reached. Individual conduct
has no other choice. But in measures OF
public veal, in our form Of government,
| il is, as rule, expedient to do what a
majority OF the citizens demand. Local
option 10, therefore, expedient because it
offers the opportunity of revealing the
will Of the majority. He says, s'to
apply such rule focal option1 to so
widespread and daily q habit as the use
e e