Page images
PDF
EPUB

FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITIONS.

349

It seems an absurdity to claim that such an evil is beyond and above moral and legal restraint. We have already seen that, if subject to either, and the necessity require, it must be subject to both. I shall venture to assume that the constant warfare of the last hundred years for the rescue of men from this infinite curse has not been attempted tyranny on the part of those who waged it; that "personal liberty" has not been violated by all these gigantic efforts of the greatest and tenderest and the best, to promote the happiness of others by all the energies of personal love, of enlarged philanthropy, of the church and of the State; that the mighty noise of the battle to-day is not all for the destruction of our liberties, but rather for their preservation, and for the salvation of our homes and of our country, and for the happiness of mankind.

I close this chapter with certain propositions which I believe to be true. They were advanced by me on an occasion now long past. They have been subjected to at least the opportunity of critical examination, which I know they have received on the part of those who are interested to disprove them; for if they be true propositions, then, "their craft is in danger." They have never yet been confuted, nor, so far as I know, even assailed.

These propositions cover the case, and if they are not true they ought to be confuted, for many believe them, and will act upon them until they be either disproved or be enforced by all the powers of moral suasion and of public law.

[blocks in formation]

In order to justify legislation of any kind restricting the manufacture and use of alcoholic liquors, I believe it to be necessary to maintain these propositions:

First. That it is the duty of society, through the agency of government, which is the creature of society, to enact and enforce all laws which, while protecting the individual in the full possession and enjoyment of his inalienable rights, tend to promote the general welfare, and especially whenever that welfare is impaired or threatened by any existing or impending evil it is the duty of society to enact and enforce

laws to restrict or destroy that evil. It may be proper to observe that no law can promote the general welfare which deprives an individual of an inalienable right, when that right is properly defined, or which impairs the enjoyment thereof, whether of life, liberty, property, or the pursuit of happiness. But society has inalienable rights as well as individuals, and the right to such legislation as will promote the general welfare, in its true sense, is one of them; and the inalienable rights of individuals and the inalienable rights of society at large are limited by, and must be construed and enjoyed with reference to each other.

Second. While society has no right to prevent or restrict the use of an article by individuals for purposes which are beneficial only, yet if that use, beneficial to some, is found by experience to be naturally and inevitably greatly injurious in its effects upon others and upon society in general, then it becomes the duty of society, in the exercise of its inalienable right, to promote the general welfare, and, in self-defense to social life, just as the individual may defend his natural life, to prohibit, regulate or restrict the use of that article, as the case may require. This principle is daily applied in laws which control the manufacture and use of gunpowder, nitro-glycerine, dynamite, and other things of great and dangerous potency, the unrestrained use of which, even for useful purposes, has been shown by experience to be destructive to the inalienable rights of others. This results from the common principle of law that every man must so enjoy his own rights as neither to destroy or impair those of another, and it is the great end for which government is instituted among men to compel him so to do.

Third. No person has a right to do that to himself which impairs or perverts his own powers; and when he does so by means of that which society can reach and remove by law, to such extent as to become a burden or a source of danger to others, either by his example or by his liability to commit acts of crime, or to be essentially incapacitated to discharge his duties to himself, his family and society, the law - that is, society - should protect both him and itself. A man has no more right to destroy his inalienable rights

FUNDAMENTAL PROPOSITIONS.

351

than those of another, or than another has to deprive him of his own. The laws restraining the spendthrift in the destruction of his inalienable right in property, and punishing suicide (as the common law did, by forfeiture of estate, etc.) or attempted self-murder (as the law does now), are familiar examples of the application of this principle.

These are elementary principles of law and of commonsense. They are corner-stones of all just government. To these principles every member of society is held to have given his assent. They are unquestioned, so far as I know, by any one who believes in any law. They are axiomatic, and indestructible as the social organization itself.

[ocr errors]

Fourth. The use (unless medicinally) of alcoholic liquors to the extent of intoxication or poisoning- which, as will hereafter be seen, is the same thing as intoxication — is an injury to the individual; it inflicts great evils upon society at large; it is destructive to the general welfare; it is of a nature which may be greatly restricted if not destroyed by the enforcement of appropriate laws. Consequently such laws should be enacted and enforced; and this should be done in our country, either by the States or by the general government, or by both, if such laws can be made more efficient thereby. If these propositions be true, I believe that the facts in the controversy between man and alcohol unquestionably bring the traffic under the jurisdiction of prohibitory law.

If these propositions be not true, then, society is without cement and government is rank usurpation.

CHAPTER XVII.

UNDER WHICH LAW, LICENSE OR PROHIBITION?

The Principles Underlying the License Idea Discussed-Prohibition under a Chinese Emperor, Four Thousand Years Ago-New York City under License Mapped and Studied as a City of Saloons-The Relative Merits of License and Prohibition as Means of Restriction"Prohibition Does not Prohibit," an Absurdity-Gov. Dingley's Testimony - New Hampshire and Vermont.

A

SSUMING, from the preceding facts and discussion, that opposition to the liquor traffic by the individual and society is obedience to the first law of nature, which is the exercise of the great right of self-defense, it becomes a vital matter to determine in what way and by what methods that right shall be exercised. It is obvious that it must be done either by persuasion or by force, or by their combination. The conduct of the producer and of the consumer must be controlled by their own will voluntarily yielding to the right, or by the will of others. No human power has the right to force the will of the individual when on the defensive, save the State. If the liquor traffic existed only by mere sufferance, and not by legal recognition and under the protection of the State, the law of self-defense would justify individuals and communities in the use of so much force as should be found necessary to destroy it without resort to legal measures. But it now exists under the protection of law. It will not yield to persuasion. removed, force must be applied by the under the direction of the sovereign will.

If, then, it is to be sovereign power That will is the

law; and if its existing expression protects the traffic, it must be changed to secure the regulation or the destruction of the traffic.

The law must permit absolutely without restraint of the trade as in case of any useful occupation; or it must regulate and restrict, which implies that the trade is more or less dangerous to society; or it must prohibit absolutely, which

« PreviousContinue »