Year: 1876

The proposal to abolish peanut eating in
the street cars has very properly aroused the
indignation of many of our correspondents,
to some of whom we give room elsewhere.
The abstract right to eat peanuts must be con-
ceded, and that concession once made, it fol-
lows that the practical exercise of the right
cannot be forbidden by sumptuary laws.
The constitution is as clear upon this point
as it is upon any other, and, in truth, clearer
than it is upon some points. Although it is
to be admitted that peanuts are not ex-
plicitly mentioned in that document, still
they are plainly referred to in the preamble,
which declares the object of the constitution
to be to promote the general welfare and
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity." Nothing could be
stronger than this, for peanuts, by reason of
the phosphorus they largely contain, pro-
mote the general welfare by increasing the
brain power of the country. Peanut eaters
are, as rule, intelligent individuals, for,
a priori, they know what is good, and to
been considered an evidence of wisdom.
(See Proverbs.) Now, when it is the object
of the constitution not only to promote, :"
but to secure" the blessings of liberty pea
nuts and other matters, it follows that pea
nut eating cannot be prohibited without vio-
lating both the letter and spirit of charter
which is dear to the American heart


But the champions of corrupt and un-
just sumptuary law will say that they do not
wish to prohibit peanut eating per Sc, but
only as the overt act exists in the cars. This
argument is wretched evasion not worth
refuting; yet we shall now refute it, for if we
only refute those things that are worth refu-
tation we should soon have nothing to refute
whatever. They profess to be willing to
allow peanut eating in any place whatever
except in the horse cars, by which they hope
to gain great applause for their liberality.
But in reality they concede nothing while
hypocritically affecting to grant all. To
prohibit peanuts in the street cars is to pro-
hibit them altogether, for there is no other
place where they are eaten. Thus the
apologists for degraded system of sump-
tuary supervision assert that man may eat
an abstract peanut, but that he cannot eat q
concrete peanut. This is to eat of the
''chameleon's dish-to feed on air." for who
ever bought a pint of abstract peanuts
They might as we'll say to man, ''We
grant you abstract right to keep
hogs, but you must not keep
them in n hog pen. You may keep
them in your parlor or your bedroom
or in a church, but not in PEN" The effect
of this would be TO annihilate hogs, just rs
the effect of the present scheme would be to
crush peanuts; for the cars are clearly the
only places where real peanut eater can
eat them with proper satisfaction. 1t is
the same with tobacco chewing, to which by
long custom the street cars are appropriated


Men who would not spit tobacco juice in the
streets are glad to do so in the cars. They
feel that the floor of a car is equivalent to a
spittoon, and many people, in fact, have
learned to eat peanuts and chew tobacco
simply by riding up and down town in the
cars every day. If the cars were made for
ladies and gentlemen the case might be