232 / 248
232
THE FLOWING BOWL
liquor traffic," says an authority on the ethics ot
total abstinence, " there has been much con
troversy. Its opponents have contended that it
is an invasion of personal liberty ; that even when
imposed by a majority it is a violation of the
rights of the minority ; and that all that is really
required is such a magisterial and police super
vision as will repress drunkenness as much as
possible, and inflict different penalties on
offenders.
To this statement various answers
are returned. With regard to the violation of
personal liberty the prohibitionists maintain that
in one sense all law interferes with liberty. A
good law interferes with the liberty to do wi'ong.
Therefore, they say, assuming that the common
sale of drinks wrongs the public, a law interfering
with this wrong is in accord with true liberty.
They hold that individual profit must be sub
servient to the public welfare, Salus populi suprettia
lex. If hardship is alleged as affecting the buyer,
the statement of John Stuart Mill is quoted,
who declared that every artificial augmentation
of the price of an article is prohibition to the
more or less poor; yet there is hardly any
government which does not in some way or
other legislate so that the price of intoxicants is
increased. As to the possibility of extirpating
intemperance by means of strict regulation as to
the sale of drink, the prohibitionists affirm that
the existing system has been tried for hundreds
of years, and often under the most favourable
circumstances for its success, and that yet the
licensing system, as judged by its fruits, is
confessed to be a melancholy failure."