The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1919-04-30
TAFT SAYS DRY LAW
IS NOT A BLOW AT
PERSONAL LIBERTY

Former President Taft, who is to
speak on the league of nations in
! Richmond next Saturday, was at one
time exceedingly dubious about the
value or the practica bility OF prohi-
biton More mature thought and
observations of the effects of the dry
I policy, have caused him to change his
| views materially. and in the May
edition of the Ladies Home Journal,
! he tells some of the reasons which
/ have impelied him TO adopt the posi-
| ton that the law Is enforceable and
| that ii Is not a blow at personal
liberty. Among other things, he says:
We now hear much of the argu-
meut against prohibition based on the
postulate that in a free government
/ IKE ours in which no man is to be
deprived of life. liberty and property
except after due process OF law, 1T
| is contrary to the spirit OF our clvili-
1ation and constitution to enforce
I upon people such a curtailment of
/ their freedom OF action In their diet
/ All will admit that the state may
! properly pass laws to preserve the
morals of the community by punish
ing murder, rape and such crimes
| The more doubtful questisT Is
where tho line is to be drawn as to
moral. but having tendency, If un-
restrained, TO lead to decentralization
in society. The line is more in respect
to Il differs radically in different
countries; and al different times in the
same country This shows the absur-
ditv of referring to the use of wine in
the New Testament as an argument
for the inalenable right 10 drink
Time was In this country when no
entertainment in church or town or
social gathering, was deemed com
plete without rum as a beverage for
all the guests. Drunkenness was
common and was not looked upon as
a great sin The consumption Of
liquor and wine at the dinner given
10 General Washington by his officers
when he laid down the command Of
the armies. as shown IN the accounts.
Is startling demonstration of the
per capita capacity of those heroes
for consumption of strong drink.
What fs true of the drinking OF In
toxicating liquors Is true of other acts
, not necessarily immoral in themselves
Take, for instance, betting and Eamh
ling. At the common law, wagers
were not unlawful and man might
sue and recover on a bet. The play
ing Of cards In an innocent amusement
and some believe that II adds TO the
zest OF n game 10 have little stake
on the result In England cards are
rarely played II there is no; a small
stake.
~Of COURSE England and this
! country both have severe gaming
laws and absolute prohibition OF gam
bling houses, but very different views
| by very good people are thus enter
! tanned as to the innocence Of playing
for small stakes
! Akin to gambling Is lottery. when
| our constitution was adopted and for
years afterward, lotteries We're author
tied by statute as Il legitimate instru-
ment for the raising Of funds for
| churches. for libraries and for many
| quasi public needs. Gradually this
demoralizing tendency manifested it.
! self in the waste or money and the
mptation to secure money by steal
| ing to take chances. Policy" so call
! ed. was a local form Of lottery in
which the lowest and the poorest spent
all their earnings These results led
to stringent laws, Yet there are
civilized Christian countries in which
| The lottery is sim used for govern
mental purposes, Prof William era
ham sumner OF Yale, in a remarkable
! UNok called + otRWANS. SelS OUT AT
length this growth of moral ideas
| and moral restraints
What fs Personal Freedom OF Action
| Instances like these have a bearing
on the question whether the restric-
ton OF the many in their moderate
use of intoxics ting liquors Ia a real
and improper curtailment under our
system of government OF their per-
sonal freedom of action, Liberty
guaranteed by the constitution is
| liberty regulated by law The law
which regulates liberty is that which
| is adopted upon the will Of the
ma 1ority for the general public benefit
In no community where there Is any
neighborhood relation between one
person or another or between one
family and another can there be COM
plete freedom of action. The cave
man Is really the only man that ever
enjoyed that kind of liberty and his
liberty was subject to complete
RESTRAINT by death from a stronger
cave man with n larger and heavier
club. Liberty regulated by law is that
measure OF freedom of action which
out injury to the enjoyment of SINH
lar liberty by others or to the general
weffaressof all
How Restraint of Liberty rs Settled.
How far we should go in limiting
| liberty for the welfare of all is of
course, constantly recurring ques-
ton. An attempt 10 limit. the indi-
vidual in his initiative and wide field
OF action on the theory that the
government can tell him better what
he ought 10 do than he can deter
mine for himself may be as foolish, as
paralyzing and as despotc as the
minute prescription of negative and
affirmative duties contemplated in
radical socialism.
Reasonable restraint OF personal
liberty of action for the common well
fare is really matter OF degree II
is to be settled by the general and
dominant opinion of all the people in
a community of common purpose,
common ideals and the common en-
joyment of the blessings of liberty and
Justice This crystallizos into kind
of moral code based on the various
effect of practices sufficiently serious
10 affAct tbA walfarA of tina com-