The Waxahachie daily light. [volume] (Waxahachie, Tex.) 1894-current, 1911-06-30
Personal LIBERTY

The claim lis made THAI pr0hib.-
tiou laws violate Sine natural OH
personal liberty OF the citizen
This argument has long since beeu
exploded. and since the decision ot
the Supreme Court of tbo United
States I'm these liquor cases has only
been advanced when the apologlst
for the saloon js bankrupt OF every
other argument We can well at
ford on our side 20 let the decis-
ion of the Supreme Court Of the
United states put This sophistry at
rest
Crowley VS. Christensen, 1877. II.
S. Reports D. &c.
"It is urged that as liquors are
used as a beverage and the injury
following them, If taken in excess.
is voluntarily inflicted and confined
to the party offending. their sale
should be without restriction, the
contention being that when man
shall drink, equally with what lac
shall eat, is not properly matter for
legislation. There is in this posi-
does not exist. that when liquors are
taken in excess the injuries are con
fined to the party offending. The
injury. it is true. first falls on hum
in his health which the habit uu-
dermines; in hi. morals which II
weakens, and in the establishment
which it creates. But as it leads to
neglect of business and waste OF
property and general decentralization
it affects those who are immediate
" connected with and dependent on
him. And by the general concur
renee of opinion of every civilized
and Christian community there are
few sources of crime and mise'y 70
society equal to the dramsbop, where
intoxicating liquors in small guam
titles to be drunk at the time, are
sold unfortunately TO all who al-
ply. The statistics of every state
show a greater amount OF crime at
tributable to the use of ardent spir-
/ its obtained at these retail liz l'f
I saloons than to any other source.
q 1t is a question of public eX-
pediency and public morality and
not a Federal law The police pow
er of the state is fully competent
! to regulate the business. to mitigate
4 it's evils or to suppress it entirelJ.
/ AS it Is a business attended
/ with danger to the community 1t
may, as already said, be entirely pro-
hibited or be permitted under such
conditions as will limit to the ut
most its evils"
This is a terrific indictment OF
| the liquor traffic These are not the
impassioned words of the 'Prohibl-
ton agitator; they were not deliv-
| cred under the influence of praying
women and marching children, bu'
are the calm deliberation OF great
court. The fault with the argu-
ment of personal liberty is that Il
assumes that the citizen has the ma
ural right to do that which we would
prohibit. 1t does not establish Its
premise: but assumes the basis OF
its argument, because every appeal
to the liberty of the citizen Is en-
ticing, No man has the natural righ'
to drink that which experience has
demonstrated inevitably destroys
his powers of mind and body, which
disqualifies for the duty of citizen
ship. which robs him of reason ane
renders him a danger and burden
to others Much less should the state
recognize a business which CONTRIB
utes to these multiplied evils. This
truth is recognized as to every oth
err poisonous drug, EXCEPT Wits
KY. If mans stomach is his own
and if he has the natural right o.
personal liberty to eat and drlni
whatever he shall please, where u
the foundation of our long list o
laws for the protection of pubic
health and the prohibition or com
| mon sale and traffic of cocaine, NOR