Vashon Island news-record. [volume] (Vashon, Wash.) 1919-1954, 1920-11-05

ed and commonly Endorsed in
every locality, up to the fragrant
violations in the liquor realm. The
liqour representatives claim the
personal right Of privileges to en-
gage in the manufacture and sale
Of liquor for even beverage pur-
poses without any law interference
or restrictions, particularly since
the license system makes the bust
ness, what they term legitimate.
SO through the land there are open
as well as private violations of the
law because of a false interpreta-
ton of personal privileges. So we
find that the prohiMtive feature
of the law is ignored from the
lowest realm of personal discre-
pancies up to the most fragrant
violations, and all because of the
restrictive and prohibitive fea-
ture of the law. Such condition
logically, aye and morally, places
be sure there is no comparison be-
tween the personal characters Of
those indulging in slight social dis
crepancies and the general rccog-
nized criminal. But the principle
Of the attitude taken amounts to
the same from the standpoint of
the law, which is the determining
standard of all human conduct.
The attitude of all alike is to deny
the right of prohibition to any
party or principle against a self.
determined line of conduct, which
is decidedly wrong whether the
action is considered, outside of the
law, trivial or fragrant. SO, we
need but to seriously pause in CON
slderation of this matter of equali-
ty to be convinced of the loyalty,
the dishonor and unchristian prin-
ciple that lies underneath the
whole realm of negation concern
ing the law. Such a consideration
would lead many to cease the prac-
tice OF personal indulgences which
are now held to be right, or at
least socially permissible.
The Positive Extreme
But we have thus far been con-
slderlng the extreme negative at
titude, or position toward the pro-
hibitive feature of the law. There
is an extreme positive attitude,
which is equally as dangerous as
the negative. There is such a
matter as adhering too strictly to
the legality of the law.
This is done when a Fine is
drawn between mere legal status
and moral obligation and action
positively taken on the legal side.
We should ever keep in mind that,
good and necessary as the legal
principle of the civil code is,
which ever calls for explicit ODE
dience, yet there is a higher prin-
ciple governing human conduct,
which in some events cannot be
harmonized with the legal prin-
|ciple. When such lack of harmony
prevails there must be a crossing
from the legal side of the line over
to the obligatory side. For some
times after the legal requirement
is met the moral obligation still
exist. Sometimes when the legality
of the law is fully respected the
attitude is nothing short of an act
of gross injustice.
This fact is often seen worked
out in the attitude of employing
agencies and institutions, both Sc
cular and religious. The respon-
sible representatives will respect
in a most positive sense the legal
rights Of their subjects, but even
after the legal rights is met in the
act of compensation the moral OBJ
legation Of the matter is not met,
since the compensation is quite out
of proportion with the service rem
dcred and embarrassingly made
quate of the demands upon the
subject. But there are thousands
hiding from this matter of moral
obligation behind the legal claim,
when they have the ability to fully
meet the obligation. And, we say,
this matter of attitude to the legal
feature Of the law is not confined
to any common sphere of employ
ment, but such exclusive legalists
exists in every sphere. A formal
contract legally effected is the
measure of their obligation. And
they are scruplously careful to
meet that feature of their obliga.
ton, but there they stop, even
against conscious moral demand
for the full measure of justice, and
even when the legal limit is known
to result seriously against their
helpless subjects. And even the