Arizona republican., 1916-07-26
Where the People
 May Have Hearing
PERSONAL RIGHTS
the Editor of The Republican,:

To the Editor of The Republican:
 Sir Opposition to prohibition lawc finds it's most effective weapon in the assertion that such laws laws constl- ute an inVasion upon the personal richts of the individual. The vets always vigorously assert this proposl- ton and many of the "Grys" are nos so sure that there may not be some justice in it. There is probably no law so difficult to enforce as a law prohibiting the sale and use of intoXl- eating liquors. These difficulties ar rive from the more or less general be- let that the state is exceeding it's ma tural limits when it attempts to pre- scribe what shall or shall not be taken as a beverage. Prohibition will not prohibit where doubt exists as to the | fundamental right to enact and to en- | force such law.
 The idea is generally held that there are certain personal rights, inviolable | nalienable rights. that are beyond the reach of law ard sacred to the in divdual. The feeling. entertained b? both the ''Wets" and the "drys" that (. prohibition law savers something of tyranny makes easy the breaking of the law by those who are other wise and dutifu ard law abiding cit 1 iZcnS. But this attitude is entirely
 
 rights that nay not with propriety and justice be modified, abridged or extinguished altogether by society as | represented by the constituted author .ties if such action in it's effects rebounds to the benefit of society as a whole. Any act that tends even remotely to degrade or to imperil the social state is immoral and is gen. erGll1. Illegal
  live apart from his fellows and re- tain his moral. mental and hhysicial well being. To him association with his fellow man is d matter of para mount importance. To maintain a state of society is a primal necessity ard everything personal must be sub ordinated to it. The social state must be preserved at all costs Nothing can4 he allowed to exist that. evel remotely. conflicts with it's well being hettcrment and advancement.
 There is no such thing as an in- alienable right Many have conceiv- cd the idea that life. liberty and tho persuit of happiness are inalienable rights but a moments thought will show that they are not. The state takes life when the individual has made himself q menace to his neigh bors. It takes away his liberty wher he has 90 ab-scG his liberty that hi actions curtail the liberty of other; His Persuit of happiness is denied him when he cOntrives to the unhap- pinnss of his fellows
 Many thoughtful people have beer struck with the seeming inconsistenc, of law that transfers to the list O punishable crimes certain practice that, previous to the enactment of tn, law, were O. every day occurrenc Q and were carried on not only with tin suffer9nce but under the very ore tectiCn cf the laws. But the incon sistercy IS only seeming. The inter relation of tie units of society dail grow mere complex. With this in creasing com 1leXity tho offices of tn state expand The laws become nor intimate. They penetrate more deep ly into the actions of the individua and more closely do they regulate hi conduct This is evidenced hv th Tact that acts. which a few years az were considered merely as eVidenc CT business smartness and cunninl are now denounced in the laws q crimes and purisIments for thei commission are duly prescribed. Tn demand Is continrally. going ,ID tha certain practices in business and else where be brought within the scope q
 
 If a business or practiee be consid cred wholly mad. regulation may prop erly proceed to the point of tota rohihition and the state will nc have cNceede6 itS offices. The pr1 hltitionist needs to experience n guIlfns of conscience as to the .Iti mate right to prohibit the use of liU uors. The individual possesses llgh'. the enjoyment of which react 'o me detriment of society. Per sonal liberty may be exercised onl 10 the point where it conflicts direc, " ol indirectly with th,. well bein nf others. It is the duty of the stat to determine the limits for the oyor clSe of nersonal liberty and such limit VIII he changed or adjusted to su .he growing complexity of moder
 K. D. Q. JOHNSON.