The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1910-10-29
PERSONAL. LIBERTY IS NOT
ALWAYS A GOOD PLEA

The people Of at least three states
Of the Union. says the Womans Ma
tional Daily. are hearing a great deal
at present about personal liberty" All
OF the great Instruments Of publicity,
including orators, newspapers, bill
boards and advertising cards in street
cars, are being utilized to inform vot-
ers that denying a man the privilege
Of drinking liquor when and where
he desires to drink it is striking a
blow at the very foundations OF free
dom "As WE'LL say these publicity
agents. prohibit a citizen from eating
meat as prohibit him from taking
glass Of beer
Did you read the case OF Louis Dro-
chter as set forth in the Daily of re-
cent date? Because personal liberty"
il denied St. Louisans on the Sabbath,
the saloons being closed from Satur
day midnight until Monday morning,
DrOchter went across the Mississippi
river into Illinois to spend the day.
There he became involved in a quarrel
with a friend who refused to buy beer
for him with the result that he is now
lying. dangerously wounded, in ST
Louis hospital. He Is receiving treat
ment at the expense OF his family.
Meanwhile. he is not working. Now,
the question is. how does this sort OF
personal liberty benefit Drochter or
any one dependent upon or interested
in him? And how about the friend,
also beneficiary Of personal liberty,
who IL responsible for Drochters pres
emit condition. and for whose board in
Jail the people of st. Louis are pay
ing? How about the members Of this
assailant's family? Has the personal
liberty" that their son and brother en-
joyed been Of any advantage to them
Has 1t been Of any advantage to any
one connected with the affair? Would
either Drochter or his assailant have
been deprived of anything valuable if
he right to buy liquor had been de-
prived them?
Thousandx Of identical and similar
cases might be cited, but here is one
that involves points Of interest to So
ciety ~ q whole. The police records
Of st. Louis show that there were re-
Gently arrested in that city four men
who are accused Of having driven a
team at a mad pace down Broadway
the principal business fhoroughfare,
hitting women in the face with the
lash Of a whip as they drove. One
man stood on the rear Of the wagon
welding the whip He slashed at ev-
cry woman who was close enough to
the curb to be within reach. He hit
q number. one of them being struck
across the eyes. Finally the man
jumped from the wagon and pursued
woman who had lodged one of his
blows, and the result was that police
men Captured him. OF course, the man
was drunk; no man who was not
would have ever committed such an
ofense. Nor is this ALL The next day
the other members Of the original
party repeated the exploit of the pre-
vious day, and this time the entire
crowd, except the driver of the team
was arrested.
These men enjoyed to the fullest
what the champions Of the liquor cause
are pleased to call personal liberty
Who profted? The women who were
struck? The imprisoned men? The
families Of the men? The city of st
Louis! II none Of these, then who
Did anyone profit except the men who
made and sold the stuff that caused
the mad ride? Can it be possible thai
real personal liberty is involved in
the prohibition Of something that has
not since the world began ever led tt
good? Think it over.