Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1911-11-10

s JUDGE RICHARD
state, no matter what may be the con-
ditions that environ that particular To-
q cality, and which might properly influ-
ence the decision of the question as to
that locality.
I / deny that either the cause Of good
/ government or of temperance took a
great forward movement in the pass
age cH the act of 1907 generally known as
the general prohibition law, and l assert
that as prohibition law it is farce,
with the revenue attachments which the
same general assembly grated upon it,
Whatever else may be said of the law as
p whole, it is a misnomer to call 1t a pro-
Inhibition law. 80 far from the general
assembly of 1907 having taken any for
ward step in the interest of good gov
eminent by depriving the people of any
expression upon the liquor traffic, from
my standpoint the passage OF that law
was a step backward in the direction
of class legislation and inquisitorial
methods that oppressed our forefathers
400 years ago.
/ favor the submission OF the liquor
question, as >all other questions, to the
people because the only Forward step
that is ever taken in PUBLIC institutions
is when the people are accorded greater
liberty of action in the control o. their
own affairs, and the recognition of the
right of the people to rule is always anu
everywhere the highest evidence or their
advancement. The withdrawal OF power
from the people can only be sanctioned
upon the theory that the people them-
f, selves area Incapable of self government,
and popIIlar rights are always the great
| est where the people are the most intel
| Iigentf Statewide prohibition was not
an Issue in the campaign of 1906. NO
candidate for governor limited at II, ana
! the question, was not presented IN the
| selection of members of the genera as
sembIy For this reason the reversal OF
policy involved in the passage OF this
act, without the a~vice or consent %
! the voters, who were never consulted,
was. in my judgment, a long step pacA-
ward instead of forward movement
/ q THE PRESENT LAW
THE local option law of 1885 was de-
| signed TO prevent the evils OF lnlem-
| rance and SO states in its caption.
/ Where il was passed by the people OF
a county as a police regulation, II was
so effective that it was adopted by the
vast majority of the counties of Geor-
gia and as in other matters of police
| regulation 1T was effective because 1t
| was supported by the expressed will OF
| the people who Were affected by it. The
I present so-called prohibition law, which
! is said to be too sacred to be criticised
| Is Of purely political origin. 1t was
/ begotten by political artifice, conceived
in stealth, and ,ushered into the worlo
as a snap Judgment which silenced by
force the voice of any humble citizen
/ who might dare to protest against it,
am not of that number who think that
even the loftiest end justifies the use
II of ignoble means for. its achievement.
| The legislators who passed the Act OF
\ 1907 were elected in the campaign of
1906 In that campaign the passage
of statewide prohibition law was not
limited at.
The issue of repeating a system of To-
cal option with regard to the traffic OF
! Intoxicating liquors which had been Inn
planted as a policy of the State for
nearly generation and of substituting
prohibition in it's place and thereby de-
| priving the individual citizen of any
right whatever to express his views up
on the subject, was not submitted to the
voters of the state even indirectly. VI
! any pledges were extorted they were
surreptitiously obtained. 1 do not care
to comment upon this dark lantern
form of politics, which imposed upon
the confidence of at least a large part
of the voters, who, if they had known
1 the candidate for the general assembly
was pledged to statewide prohibition
would have voted for him. The pas
sage of this law depriving some of the
counties of the right to regulate the
sale of Intoxicating hqours without
their consent and thus depriving then,
of the right which had therefore been
accorded to their sister counties was at
least an act of seeming injustice tend,
ing to create a natural resentmen j.
against the ruthless exercise of the
mere power of might.
Granting, for the sake of argument,
| that it was necessary by brute force to.
cvermaster the Wills of those citizens
of our state who are of the opinion
| that the traffic of Intoxicating liquors
is not necessarily criminal, pc Sc and
may be iegalized, let us see what the
4 legislature has given us. Let us ten
Derby examine this oracle of the law,
thar we dare not touch with impious
hands. IT is a Janus-faced, two sided
affair. In front it stand out ostensi-
| bly, as most drastic measure designed
to absolutely prohibit not only the
/ traffic, but the use OF all intoxicants
1 of whatever name or nature 1t goes
further; it diRlinishes the uses to when
our orchards and our VINEYARDS can be
put by rendering them worthless so far
as the manufacture of any fluid in any
/ degree intoxicating may be concerned
i 1t does not stop there. 1t makes d
criminal of the gentle housewife who
may dare TO make a bottle of wine
from her grapes or an ounce of cordial
4 from her blackberries. The puritanti-
cal soul of old Praise God Barebones
might shout for JOY at this infusion or
/ the Massachusetts spirit into our Geors
gia laws, but the legislature of 1907
knew that their archaeic production
! (though it might have been we'll fitted