The Right to Fight the Rum Traffic by Legislation - The Objection urged against Prohibition — The Manufacture and Sale of Liquors in the Light of “an Inalienable Right"-"Sumptuary Laws" Improperly Defined by Hon. Geo. G. Vest as "Prohibitory Legislation" -The Right to Oppose the Rum Traffic Argued-No "Personal Liberty" to Make or Sell Agencies to Produce Crime and Murder— The Liquor Traffic Considered as a "Business"--- Fundamental Propositions as to Legislation on the Liquor Traffic.

W

E have now, with some labor, endeavored to ascertain and illustrate the nature of alcohol, the effect which its use has upon the individual man, the family, the local community, the nation, all nations- society at large. It must be and it is admitted that alcohol, as a factor in human affairs, is a tremendous curse, and especially to civilized nations. It confronts us everywhere with its snaky eye and poison tooth, and everywhere it strikes. What strange fascination has this foul thing, over Christian and heathen alike, that it should be thus allowed the liberty of the world? Yet it is to-day an open question, even a great political issue, whether there should be laws enacted having for their specific object the destruction of the trade in drinks which intoxicate. We are told that such laws are violations of personal liberty; of the freedom for which our fathers fought and our flag now waves. That" sumptuary laws," as the term is used in the political nomenclature of the day, mean prohibitory legislation - or, as Hon. George G. Vest expressed the idea in an able speech delivered at Boonville, Mo., September 29, 1882, largely circulated as a political document:

"When the Cincinnati platform of the Democratic party, of which convention I was a member, declared against all sumptuary laws, that convention had reference to prohibitory legislation. What do you understand to be

the meaning of sumptuary? You understand and I understand that it means simply and solely prohibitory legislation, which has been an issue before the American people more or less since 1851, when the first law was enacted, in the State of Maine."

Before proceeding, I must call attention to the persistent error of those who confound laws prohibitory of the liquor traffic with what are known as "sumptuary laws." Sumptuary laws interfere with the personal conduct of the individual in some matter in which society is not really concerned; as for instance in regard to what he shall eat, drink or wear. But no law has ever yet been proposed, to my knowledge, and certainly none is now advocated by any one, which would prohibit the personal use of intoxicating liquor when that use or its consequences do not injure or endanger the rights of others. Laws in prohibition of the manufacture and sale of intoxicating drinks are public in their nature and are enacted for the protection of society against the great evils of the traffic in strong drink, and are no more "sumptuary" than the laws against robbery or murder. I do not concede that society may not go further than it has yet gone, and prohibit the personal use of alcohol or any other poison, or of any substance which injures the bodies and souls of its members, and thus unfits the man for the performance of the duties which he owes to society at large. I only desire now to point out the injustice and absurdity of confounding the prohibitory laws of our time, which relate only to the manufacture and sale for use by others, with "sumptuary laws," which relate only to the consumer and to the manner in which he shall apply food, drink, or raiment, or shelter to his private use. There is no more ridiculous instance of confused thought and expression in the whole nomenclature of absurdity. The eagerness of the advocates of the liquor traffic to transfer to the temperance cause all the opprobrium possible, whether deserved or not, must be credited with this gross perversion of phraseology, since any other explanation is inconsistent with the possession of ordinary intelligence on their part.

But to proceed.

It must also be conceded by any logical mind that if no law

AGITATION AND LAW.

-

339

which prohibits the traffic should be enacted, because it is an invasion of the inalienable right of personal liberty, then laws for the restraint or regulation of the traffic, so far as they do restrain and regulate, are invasions of the same right, and are subject to the same objection. There may be taxation for the purpose of revenue, for the object of taxation is the public good, which includes individual good, and therefore in promotion of the right of personal liberty; — and all occupations and property are subject to taxation upon this principle; but when this end is obtained, the right to tax ceases and sumptuary or prohibitory legislation, being never for the purpose of raising money for the State but rather to restrain and destroy the traffic itself, which is destruction alike of the revenue and of the sources of revenue, whether it be absolute or only partial, is pro tanto a violation of constitutional personal right. The principle, then, is that there should be no law to prohibit or fetter the existence of the traffic in intoxicating beverages, because men have a personal right to make, sell and use them, just as they make, sell and use any beneficial commodity.

All political discussion is of the "moral suasion” character. Its object is to convince the judgment and persuade to action, for the enactment and enforcement, or for the repeal or modification, of some law. The lawmaking power is to decide and to act upon the right or the wrong of the thing in issue, for law is a "rule of action, prescribed by the supreme power of the State, commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong." If, then, 'sumptuary" or prohibitory or restrictive laws are all wrong in themselves, it can not be right to agitate, that is, to use the forces of the pulpit, the rostrum and the press, and of personal influence, to secure their enactment. It can not be right to agitate to secure that which is wrong. It will be admitted that the only justification of any law is its tendency to promote the public good, which includes that of individuals, the aggregation of whom constitutes the public. It is not right to endeavor to create a general public sentiment or public opinion, which is the strongest of all laws, whether put into statutory form or not, and which will of itself destroy this traffic, if it becomes strong enough, without any