The Republican journal., 1911-09-07

To THE EDITOR OF THE JOURNAL: 1t
is held by some that the State has no
right to prohibit the liquor traffic be-
cause, forsooth, it would be an interfer-
ence with the natural and inalienable
right of each citizen. We take issue
with that claim, and will cite the princi-
pies contained in the Declaration of In
dependence, which we believe will apply:
1--WE hold these truths to be self-evi-
dent, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with
THESE ARE LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PUR-
SUIT 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 be-
comes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it
and to institute a government, laying Its
foundation on such principles and organ
izing its powers in such form as to them
shall seem most likely to affect their
safety and happiness.
We feel safe in concluding that mas
much as the life, liberty, and the pur-
suit of happiness" are to be fostered
and protected by civil government, the
State is acting wholly within her right
full province in prohibiting a business
which in reality nvades the natural or
inalienable rights of the citizens. 1t can
net 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 claim. but decisions of the United
States Supreme Court attest that TIE
mestion is one of serious importance.
In the case of Crowley VS.. Christensen
137 It. S, 8Gy the United States Su-
preme Court held;
1.-THE statistics of every State show a
greater amount of crime and misery at
pibutabe to the use of ardent spirits
obtained at these liquor saloons than to
any other source.
Again. 1T is undoubtedly true that 1t
Is the ,jght 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 IA citizen thus to sell IN
toxicating liquor by retail. 1t is not
privilege of citizen of the State or OF
A citizen of the United States.
In the case of the State of Kansas VS..
Ziholl & Hahelin Q23 u. S. Rep, 623-
662 the Supreme Court held:
I'VE cannot shut out of view the fact
within the knowledge of all that the pub
lie 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, Howard, AS
4. s, 573-6 32:
IF IA loss of revenue should accrue to
the United States because of prohibi-
ton) from diminished consumption OF
ardent spirits, she will be a gamer a
thousand fold in the health, wealth and
happiness of the people.
Some hold tenaciously to the statement
that prohibition does not prohibit. This
statement is usually INDUCED in by those
who are either in the liquor traffic or
favor it. If this be true, why does the
tiauor element work so strenuously IN
opposition to prohibitory measures? But
then claim may be swept to the winds by
suggesting that we repeal all laws against
murder, theft, assaults, and crimes OF all
character. because of the fact that these
laws do not prohibit these crimes.
1t was a grand day when the slavery
of human beings was abolished 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 eliminated by
National and State government.
Very respectfully,
H. c. RUSSELL.