The advocate. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1901-1913, 1909-01-28
WHEELING |NTELL|CENCER AND i: !:
THE PROHIBITION AMENDMENT

not enforce prohibition In Wood, Ohio,
kanawha, Fayette and similar coun-
ties, if the local officials fail to en-
force it: The governor may not with
out long and dif1cult legal process re,
move prosecuting attorney from of
fee; nor can he compel grand juries
to indict, and petit juries to convict
The only way it has been possible
to secure enforcement of Sunday clos
ing laws in Ohio county has been by
the unusual process of applying to
circuit judge for an injunction with
the penalty Of forfeiture of license and
imprisonment staring them in the face,
saloonists have obeyed. Under prohi-
Pition, this procedure would not be
possible. Manifestly a whole commu.
nifty cannot be ,enjoined, and unknown
offenders cannot be reached by indi
vfdual process TO enfore prohibition
then resort would, be to the statutes
and the ordinary. machinery of the To-
cal courts and that machinery would
absolutely. fail in a number of the
counties in this state, simply because
the people not In sympathy with the
law would elect officials whose princi-
pie business would be-, to cause it to
fail
Another consideration:-Is it NOR
ally right for the citizens of distant
counties, who favor a certain line of
action relative to the liquor traffic, to
| seek to force their own views upon
their fellow citizens in other sections
| who have been taught to blieve in an
| entirely different policy? The Intel.
ligencer knows that It's prohibition
friends fall behind the protection of
the ,!etter Of the law when this ques.
tion, is asked. West Virginia Rs "a
state may legally impose States vide
prohibition; as a state 1t may also
confiscate property and do many other
| acts of injustice to the individual, in
the name of the public fweal, but the
mere possession of power does not jus,
tify its exercise. or eliminate the
moral question that may be Involved.
TO turn the tables, what would Fbe
thought Of a suggestion coming from
| Ohio, Wood, Cabell or Kanawha coun-
| ties, to the effect that all saloon IL
cense charges should be RENTED, that
the sale of liquor should be free, open
and unrestricted In every county, and
that no county or local court should
be given any power to prevent or lin
1T the operation of the saloon In any
way. Legally the wide open saloon
In every county and district in the
state has exactly the same status as
state wide prohibition. 1t is possible
for the legislature to bring about that
very condition of affairs-a condition
that would deny to strong antisaloon
communities the right to exclude the
saloon. Yet, If that were seriously
proposed by any one, it's unqualified
iniquity and injustice would forbid q
| hearing.
In broad sense, the, laws of this
and OF every other civilized country
are designed for the protection of the
rights of individuals, and not for the
invasion and limitation of them Muir
der, robbery, arson are all common
law crimes, because they invade the
individual right to life, liberty and the
peaceful enjoyment Of property. This
drinking Of liquor and tho sale of liz
uor are not common law crimes. They
invade no individual right and limit
mo mans freedom Of action. We can
mot, therefore, class the drinking and
lsale of liquor in the same category as