The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-06-26
Voice Of the eople
More illumination from MIR. cannon.

Editor OF The TImes. Dispatcl.
Slr,-rhe Times Dispatch, In Its Issues
of Juno 14th, writes an editorial call.
ing for compensation for the drunkaid-
tstroyed and their property rendered
less valuable by prohibition. 1t ac-
ltually advances the opinion that in
view Of the large property interests
In America, II Is not too much
Ito say that utter destruction OF the
not be the ultimate attitude OF even
prohibition cominunities.n
This Is a very remarkable statement
to appear In the columnn of a we'll
posted newspaper. This question Of
compensation is no new question. II
has been discussed fully, and has been
carried through the highest courts Of
Our land, and been passed upon by the
Supreme Court over twenty years ago.
When the State OF Kansas adopted.
It's prohibitory law. the State was sued
I by one Of the drunkard-inakers OH tile
ground that 1t had destroyed property
OF n citizen without compensation. The
United states Supreme Court decided
that there was no ground for compen-
sation. and declared:
Nor can 1t be said that government
interferes with or impairs any ones
constitutional rights of liberty or of
property when 1t determines that the
lmanufacture and sale OF Intoxicating
drinks for general or individual use. as
Ia beverage, are or may become hurt
ful to society, and constitute therefore
q business. In which no one may law.
fully engage."-Mugler vs.. Kansas. 1874
U. s.. 625.
The property interests which seem
SO important to the editor of The
Times Dispatch have been steadily In
upon this subject. The drunkard-
makers knew the decision OF the SUI
preme Court IL The Times Dispatch
does not. and they know when they
invest their money that the supreme
Court has said, IF the right to sell
liquor were one Of the inherent rights
OF personal liberty. such, for Instance
as the right OF the family to sell his
corn. wheat or potatoes, the Legisia-
ture could neither burden nor abridge
II by imposing special tax or re-
Touring a special license. II
1t We're harmless and not inimical to
the good OF society, 1t could not be
subjected to special burden, restriction
Tor regulation" There is no Inherent
fright in citizen to sell Intoxicating IL
quor, 1t is not the privilege of citi-
zen OF State or OF the United States
import could be made from the de- de-
cit,or OF the highest tribunals Of this
country Are these decisions unknown
to eod the /, editor to Of The T}mes-Dtspateh?
NNSSS iiS liiiiN -liIdS lHese oSClSlpUs
give any doubtful, equivocar note?
Have any prohibition committees up
to the present time suggested any
compensation for the drunkard maker?
When judge refuses seventy-five sa-
loon-keepers OF Richmond license,
does anybody propose compensation?
The Supreme Court declares that "a
greater amount of crime and misery
Is attributed to the use OF ardent
spirits obtained at these retail liquor
saloons than to any other sources"
Why Is not the editor OF The Times
Dispatch concerned that compensation
be given the families that are brought
to poverty. to the wives and children
whose husbands and fathers are made
to be brutal drunkards by these
drunkard- makers. 1t Is an, amazing
thing that so many OF the daily papers
of Virginia are so much concerned
drunkard- makers. The full page adj
vertisements which the liquor men buy
in their columns do not tend to I'M
press the people of the state that the
said papers are entirely unseifish, IN
their policy. Speaker Byrd, OF WIN
chester, set the papers OF the state a
noble example when after WIN
chester. had voted dry" he closed the
columns of his paper to all liquor az
vertisements. c.S,,oN 1R
W. ~ 1YuS,