Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The Conservative (Nebraska City, Neb.) 1898-1902 | View Entire Issue (April 5, 1900)
J J 1k' fc M * " - f 10 'Cbe Conservative * which allows alcoholism to weigh thorn down with criminals and "poverty- struck victims , " is in no condition to call itself a civilized nation. Tlio Declaration of Independence. It remains to bo shown that the doc trine of individual liberty and the licens ing of the liquor business on the basis of that doctrine is contrary to the Declara tion of Independence , and the Consti tution of the United States. That it is against the natural law of self-protec tion for everyone but the liquor dealer who does not drink , and even for him as a part of the community , has been suf ficiently demonstrated The Declara tion of that "the Independence says cre ator has endowed all men with certain inalienable rights , among these are life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. " It requires no argument to show that the over-consumption of liquor is not consistent with the life of the consumer his personal liberty , or happiness , or the best life , liberty , and happiness of the community. Man civil is a part of the community. In primitive days he made himself so. In these days he is born into communal institutions made such by his fathers. A queer , mad , unethical idea possesses the community. It is that because we happen to bo born into these institutions that we owe them something more than the mere obligations of a self-constituted co-partnership. The apotheosis of the state , nation , humanity , is on a par with the now gods so often raised by the an cient Athenians. The enacting clause of the constitution may be fitly compar ed to the articles of agreement of any business co-partnership. The union was formed by each member to the compact to give him a still better opportunity than had before existed to use his abilit ies for himself. It was not formed that each member should live for the benefit of any other member. On the contrary each member to the union agreed with every other member to uphold certain general conditions the maintenance of which were and are vitally essential to the well-being of each individual and to his using faculties to his best ability for himself. The enacting clause of the constitution is really the tie that binds , and while the articles provide for the government , its machinery and regula tion , the enacting clause states what the government is to do and the compass by which the government and citizens must steer. While everyone should know how it reads , the majority do not. Still fewer realize its nature and import. It is well to consider that. The CoiiHtltuiion. "We , the people of the United States , in order to form a more perfect union , estab lish justice , insure domestic tranquillity , provide for the common defense , pro mote the general welfare , and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity , do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America. " The wonderful thing in the constitu- tian is that it is such an exact state ment of the individual law of self-pre servation under social conditions. Read as it is writ , there is not one word which can bo construed into "living for the general good" save as one's individual good is dependent on the stability of the conditions detailed in the constitution. The frarners of the constitution were wiser than their posterity appears to be. They made no apotheosis of "general good" . They knew better than to fall down and worship themselves. They knew that "general good" consisted only of the prosperity of themselves individ ually. They knew that "general good" was at its best , when every man in the union was strong enough , intelligent enough , and "good enough" to be self- supportiugly useful to some one else and not interfere with any one else being self-supporting. Another thing the pos terity seem not to know is , that no per son in the United States has any rights under the constitutionthat means to citi zenship , who is not able to and does not contribute to the maintenance of all its conditions. "Women , imbeciles and pau pers" are barred. Even that is not car ried out. Paupers , in the poor houses , can and do vote in many states. There seems to be no provision for loss of citi zenship on a person becoming unfit to fulfill the conditions of citizenship. An amendment in this direction is much needed. Criminals do not lose their cit izenship by being such. They simply lose the privilege of voting while im prisoned. There can be no question that according to the broad and yet strict reading of the constitution the liquor business and the licensing the same , under the idea of a public neces sity , is unconstitutional. The statistics have been published that no one can doubt that the recognition of this "pub lic necessity" is the cause of more crime , more poverty , more mis ery than any other civilized ( ? ) in stitution. The weakness of men for liquor rendering them unfit to form sound judgments or to maintain them selves , renders such unfit to fulfill the duties of citizenship according to the constitution. The man who cannot sup port himself , cannot pay taxes. The man who cannot support himself from his weakness for liquor cannot support his family. Who does then ? Those who support themselves and pay taxes for the maintenance of the government and upholding the Union. Again , the liquor dealer supports himself and his family , and does his part as a citizen. Where then is he so immoral as to be held up to derision ? If the liquor business is constitutional then it must be shown that it is "estab lishing justice" to license a business whereby hundreds make of themselves paupers and fail to maintain their fami lies , both becoming a burden to the pub lic. True it is but just that these who license the business should pay the bills. Still it is not very high justice that per mits a man's bad habits to make paup ers of devoted wife and innocent babes. Does the liquor business "insure the do mestic tranquillity ? " The records of the police court , the disturbances of our streets , the robberies and murders that find their origin in the liquor habit show how opposed the whole business is to the constitution. Does the liquor business " for the de ness help "provide common fense" ? Yes , in so far and no farther as that very moral gentleman , the liq uor dealer , who pays his taxes and does not drink , contributes to the general fund and no farther. As a given civil ization is to be judged by the proportion of self-supporting citizens it has in com parison with the number of criminals , paupers and imbeciles , in and out of public institutions , so no state is defen sively stronger than its percentage of able-bodied , intelligently strong men , in comparison to another state. As liquor does more to make criminals , paupers and imbeciles , than any other factor it certainly is a menace to the common de fense and the business cannot be consti tutional. The same can be said as to its promoting the general welfare. As every man who becomes a victim of the liquor habit is self-evidently a slave to his own weakness , it is evident that ho is not securing the "blessing of liberty" to himself nor to the family which he makes the slave of poverty , nor to the pub lic that pays to maintain both him and his family. Is it not evident that the liquor business is unconstitutional ? There is nothing either iu natural law , the Declaration of Independence , or the Constitution , which justifies the "indi vidual right" of a citizen to weaken his self-maintaining power through liquor ; or that he shall impoverish others , or make himself and those legally depend ent on him by his own act a burden on others. The ethical law of self-preserv ation should force every intelligent , self-maintaining citizen to look on the liquor business as a personal enemy , therefore a common enemy , against which he and all who maintain the gov ernment should unite in "common de fense. " The LicuiiHU Question. Certainly , no further proof is neces sary. One point alone remains to be dis cussed. Why license the saloon ? Why penalize the saloon keeper by such ex traordinary license fees ? It has been shown that when he drinks not of his poison that he is an ethical and moral man in so far as his business is concern ed , when it supports him. If licensing the saloon finds its only justification in the individual right of a man to weaken his powers of -maintenance , then no
