The forum. [volume] (Springfield, Ill.) 1904-192?, 1911-10-12
THE LIQUOR QUESTION.
Contributed

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 prip-
ciples contained. in the Declara-
tion of Independence, which we
believe will apply:
1--WE hold these truths to be
self evident, that all men are Gre
ated equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain in
alienable rights; that among these.
are life, liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness. That to secure these
rights governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the
governed, and whenever any form
of government becomes destruc-
tive of these ends, it is the right
of the people to alter or abolish
it and to institute government,
laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing it's pow
ers in such form as to them shall
seem most likely to affect their
safety and happiness"
We feel safe in concluding that
inasmuch as the thfe, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness" are to
be fostered and protected by civil
government, the State is acting
wholly within her rightful pro-
vince in prohibiting business
which in reality invades the nat
,ral or inalienable rights Of the
citizen. 1t cannot be successfully
denied that the liquor business is
a menace to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.
Many claim that the arguments
of those who favor prohibition
consist largely of sentiment. Not
only do the facts refute such a
claim, but decisions of the United
States Supreme Court attest that
the question is one of serious i'm.
Iportance. In the case Of Crowley
VS.. Christensen (137 U. S., 86), the
United State Supreme Court
held
1.-THE statistics of every State
show a greater amount of crime
and misery attributable to the use
of ardent spirits obtained at these
LIQUOR saloons than to any other
source.
Again: cit is undoubtedly true
that it is the right of every citizen
Of the United States to pursue any
lawful trade, or business, under
such restrictions as are imposed
upon all persons of the same age,
sex and condition. = There
is no inherent right in citizen
thus to sell Intoxicating liquors by
retail. 1t is not a privilege of
citizen of the State or of citizen
of the United States"
In the case of the State of Kans-
sas VS.. Zihold & Hahelin, 1913 U.
is Rep, 623-662, the Supreme
Court held:
1--WE cannot shut out of view
the fact within the knowledge of
all that the public health, the
public morals, and the public
safety may be endangered by the
general use of intoxicating
drinks. +"
The United States Supreme
Court has also held in License
Cases 5 Howard, 46 U. S., 573-632:
IF loss of revenue should ac-
crue to the United States (be-
cause of prohibition) from di-
minished consumption of arden
spirits, she will be a gamer a
thousand fold in the health,
wealth, and happiness of the peo-
pie"
Some hold tenaciously to the
statement that prohibition does
not prohibit. This statement is
usually indulged in by those who
are either in the liquor traffic or
favor it. If this be true, why does
the liquor element work so siren
uously in opposition to prohibi-
tory measures9 But their claim
may be swept to the winds by sug-
gesting that we repeal all laws
against murder, theft, assaults,
and crimes of all character, be-
cause Of the fact that these laws
do not prohibit these crimes.
It was a grand day when the
slavery of human beings was abol-
ished in 1864. 1t will perhaps be
as grand and important a day
when the liquor traffic, which is
making many more slaves than
existed before the war, shall be
| olirninafed hv national and State