Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1911-09-30

money in your pocket.-Dr. Frank
Crane.
Dear Editor:-
1t is held by some that the state
has no right to prohibit the liquor
traffic because, forsooth, it would be
an interference with the natural and
inalienable right of each citizen. We
take issue with that claim, and will
cite the principles contained in the
Declaration of independence, which
we believe will apply
I'VE hold these truths to be self
evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable
rights; that among these are life, lib
erty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights govern
ments are instituted among men, de-
irving their just powers from the con-
sent of the governed, and whenever
any form of government becomes des-
tructiye of these ends, it is the right of
the people to alter or abolishit and to
institute government laying its foun-
dation on such principles and organiZ-
ing its power in such form as to them
shall seem most likely to affect their
safety and happiness -
We feel safe in concluding that in
asmuch as the life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness are to be foster
ed and protected by civil government,
the state is acting wholly within her
rightfui province in prohibiting
w n 7 he
natural or inalienable rights of the
citizen. 1t cannot be successfully de-
MED that the liquor business is
menace to life, liberty, and the pur-
suit of happiness.
Many claim that the arguments of
those who favor prohibition consist
largely of sentiment Not do the
facts refute such claim, but decis-
ions of the Uuited States Supreme
Court attest that the question is one
of serious importance. In the case of
Crowley VS.. Christensen Obs U. S. S6)
the United States Supreme Court
held
The statistics of every state show
a greater amount of crime and misery
attributable to the use of ardent spir-
its obtained at these liquor saloons
than TO any other source
Again: lit is undoubtedly true
that it is the right of every citizen of
the United States to pursue any law
full trade, or business, under such res
trictions as are imposed upon all per-
sons OF the same age, sex and condi-
/ ton. There is no inherent right in a
citizen thus to sell Intoxicating liq-
uors by retail. 1t is not a privilege
of citizen of the state or of a citi-
zen Of the United States
In the case of the state of Kansas
vs.. Zihold & Hahelin, q23 q. 5. Rep,
623-662, the Supreme Court held
We cannot shut out of view the
fact within the knowledge of all that
the public morals, and the public
safety may be endangered by the gen.
eral use of Intoxicating drinks
The United States Supreme Court
has also held in License Cases 5 How
ard 10 q. s., 57S-632:-
If a loss of revenue should accrue
to the United States because of pro-
hibition from diminished consumr-
ton of ardent spirits. she will be a
gamer thousand fold in the health,
wealth and happiness of the people, .
Some hold tenaciously TO the state
ment that prohibition does not pro-
hibit. This statement is usually in
dulged in by those who are either in
the liquor traffic or favor il. If this
be true. why does the liquor element
work so strenuously in opposition Il
prohibitory measures? But h i
claim may be swept to the winds By
suggesting that we repeal alf law:
against murder, theft, assaults. an6
crimes of all character, because of the
! fact that these laws do not prohibit
these crimes
1t was grand day when the slav
cry of human beings was abolished il
1864 1t viii perhaps be as grand anC
important day when the liquor traf
nc, which is making many more slave.
than existed before the war shall b,
eliminated by national and state gov
eminent
Very respectfully,
h c. Russell.