The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-09-18

~. j. Darlington, washington
|st lawyer. who resides in the
* Herndon, writes to the Fair
|rald:
original ground of opposition
to regulate, control or prohibit
|e of intoxicating liquors within
|mory OF any living persons, my
hong the number, was that such
were an unwarraptable inter-
b with the personal liberty of
1t was the right Of
han TO say whether he would
bill or use. such liquors, and no
han was authorized to interfere
|uch right. If the injurious eff
10 its exercise were limited to
In exercising this alleged right,
|gument, though unsound, might
Il have been regarded as plausi-
BIT. since the drunkenness OF the
|ual injuriously affected not
himself, but his wife, his
IN, his neighbors, and the peace
|elfare of the community In
he lived, that argument has
|nce been set at rest by the now
Eally universal consensus of
b and by the unanimous de-
OF the courts of the country.
ing the Supreme Court OF the
States. The last named tri-
as far back as the license cases.
|, 5G4, decided in 1S47, speaking
|ief Justice fancy. declared as
hny State deems the retail and
u traffic In ardent spirits in
to its citizens, and calculated
luce idleness, vice. or debauch-
see nothing in the constitution
United States to prevent it
regulating and restraining the
or from prohibiting 1t alto
II It thinks proper"
in the same case. that court.
ng through MIR. Justice Grier,
Is not necessary, for the sake of
|ing the State legislation now
consideration. 10 array the APP
statistics OF misery, pauperism,
Firne which have their origin IN
b or abuse of ardent spirits. The
power. which Is exclusively in
htes, II alone competent to the
lion of these great evils. ana
hsures of restraint or prohibition
brv to effect the purpose are
The scope of that authority"
III, sfe.sit4t,fa argument ntew ef--
Is a very curious modification Of
rmer argument. and is q still
Illogical one, namely: That this
hI liberty. which It can no longer
ttended belongs to the tndivid-
flongs 10 certain arbitrary, arti-
restricted territorial units with
State, such as a particular viii
Town. township, county. or the
But here, too, the argument is
bile, unless the Injurious effects
sale of Intoxicating liquors in
rtieular township. for ex@ pple.
~. y TINT TuvrT-
If a demoraiized iufuriated and
ed lrresponsieI by drink which
allowed by the will az n ma
OF the voters Of particular
hip TO purc base within It's limits,
he SO isolated as 10 he unable
treat or fail 70 support his wife
hildreu. or 10 steal rob or
r except In that particular town
.he argument. though still usl-
might possess a semhiance. a.
Of piapsseiIity. hsGt, since 40
ISOLATION 10 posi- bie, IL follows
vera bly, that 40 ssch township
to POSSESSES The rigNrtp maintain
iews tending to produce pauper~
rhine and decentralization which
extend into aud equally In
s!v affect the psUpje of other
alps contrary 10 thar VIII What
Is Ii 10 tho people Of township
he accorded the right "a pro
the sale or use az intoxicating
! within its borders H. IN the
isase.y adjoining township II.
$ are ta be wide open. extending
feneraiizjr1g and rninnus temp
!, influences and effects 30 the
Iti0ns 0f both townships ? I'll.
PIE Of local option" would be
bre legical 'n its application 70
y murder. smallpox or the like,
o the manufacture. sale or dis
an 81 Intoxicating liquors. be-
as to the former, tha injurious
could be localized within the
township or county willing 20
* them. while the evil effects Of
ter cannot he so localized. bat
10 suffered by tire people Of ad-
towns. township or counties,
.-s-y---t,r' etf--fr rr-v-rvr1CvS
ir Will.
E, too the contention against
Tit of Statewide prohibition has
etermined by the Supreme Court
United States. in a number Of
In one Of them. Mulger VS..
$, 1913 e. s., 623. decided a
r Of century since and the
re of which his been upheld by
} subsequent decisions. both n
spreme Court OF the United
and in the State courts, a pro-
OF the State constitution and
IT'S Of the legislature In pur-
! of il not only prohibited the
actnre, sale, barter or giving
IL Intoxicating liquors. but pro-
that all places whore any Of
acts should be done should be
% be common nuisances. ana