The Plymouth tribune. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1901-1911, 1907-03-21
Personal Liberty VS.. Personal Rights,

respondent OF the Indianapolis Press
is published by request of w. H.
Craig.
Personal liberty" advocates are
found on every hand. They invariab-
| ly belong to one class of men-thosc
who live by plumber, who become
rich by making other men poor; who
fatten on the virtue of other people,
and who want to be unmolested in
debauching human kind The man
who is truly free-the morally up
right and law-abiding-is finding no
fault concerning personal liberty
Every man has unmolested personal
liberty in doing right There is no
such thing as personal liberty for a
man to do wrong-either in relation
to himself or his neighbor The ques-
ton arises at this point: What is lib
erty? In what does this coveted
treasure consist?
When a man takes the liberty to
enter your house and help himself
to whatever he likes, you are not
slow to remind him that he has no
right to your valuables. When a man
assumes the liberty to barter that
which is injurious to the purchaser,
the State declares that such an act
cannot be consid red as belonging
to the rights of men. These illus
trations will be sufficient to show
that man may exercise the liberty,
that is, unrestrained action, which the
universal consciousness declares is
not right.
What is usually implied by per-
sonal liberty is more correctly ex-
Ipressed by personal rights. We af-
firm, then, that personal liberty is in
separately connected with personal
rights. A man cannot go beyond
what is right in the exercise of per-
sonal freedom If he transcends his
rights he abuses his liberty, and for
the well-being of society must be re-
strained.
The same is true of any company
of men, any corporation or State. A
State has no right to do that which is
denied the individual Neither has it
the right to grant to the individual
the permission to do that which is
Recognized as intrinsically and moral
lily wrong Where this is done, as in
the case of selling intoxicants, the
people in any community have a
moral right to prohibit such traffic
by any and every legitimate means.
This act is inherent in mans right
to protect himself personal injury
Legitimate freedom begins when
rights begin, and ends when rights
end.
The long struggle for personal lib
erty has, in reality. been struggle
for personal rights. Has man a
right-net liberty-to that which will
injure his neighbor or his family? H.
is at liberty to light his cigar by
burning SO bill, but who will say
that he has the right to do so? A
father is at liberty to abuse his child
rem, but he has no right to do So
A driver is at liberty to beat his
horse, but the law says he has no
right to do So The Government is
giving men the liberty to sell intoxi-
cants, but the religious world, and
everything good ir man, says that
to do SO is not right. No govern
ment has the moral right to grant the
!; privilege to any man or company of
men TO carry on a business that inn
poverishes and debauches mankind.
No act of Government can make an
inherently wrong thing right by per-
mission or legislation The thing is
still wrong and no man has a right
to practice it.
The advocates of the saloon traffic
are loud in their demands for unre-
strained liberty to sell intoxicants. If
they are restricted or prohibited, they
declare that their personal liberties
are being interfered with. The SUI
preme Court of the United States has
settled the question as to whether
any local community has the right to
restrict or prohibit the sale of intox-
icants as beverage and whether a
man has the right to engage in the
saloon business. The court says:
! There is no inherent right in citi-
zen to sell Intoxicating liquors by
retail; it is not a privilege of citi-
zen of State or of a citizen of the
United States. AS it is a business
J attended with danger to the conmu-
nifty, it may, as alreadv said, be en-
} tirely prohibited, or be permitted un-
Ger such conditions as will limit to
the utmost its evils. The manner and
extent of the regulation rest in the
discretion of the governing author
ity."
In commenting upon this decision
of the Supreme Court, the Washing
ton Sentinel, the National Brewers
: organ, says Under this decision the
liquor business is to be dealt with as
an evil, or even a crime, to the ex-
preston of which the extreme power
of the law may be invoked, and in
behalf of which no plea of arbitrary
enactment upon the liberty of the
person and his right to property used
and invested can be successfully
maintained.
"This decision shows that our
highest court is no longer governed
by constitutional obligations, but
has become the hotbed of the GRAZ
lest puritanical fanatisicm. If it had