The bases of the temperance reform: an exposition and appeal./ With replies to numerous objections. By Rev. Dawson Burns.

Thze Objectioni from " Libcrty."
OBJECTIONS.
I. The objection from free Irade is now seldom put
forth, and there are few persons who plainly contend
that the sale of intoxicating liquors should be as free as
the sale of corn. Perfect freedom of trade is impeded by
taxation and by restrictions upon sale; and there is
almost unanimity upon the points that intoxicating drink
should be taxed more heavily than other articles, and
that its sale should be limited by restrictions not applicable to other traffic. In the interests of trade as such, the
fewest restrictions are best; but the confession that the
liquor traffic ought to be restricted is a confession that
is not a traffic to which the principle of freedom (from
taxation or restriction) can be safely and legitimately
applied.
2. The objection that "firohibizion would be contrary to
(berly" is grounded on the supposition either that the
liberty to sell strong drink is a natural or civil right, or
that the sale of strong drink is necessary to the exercise
of some other liberty which is a personal or civil right.
The first theory is contradicted by every license law, and
particularly by the License Law of England, which denies
the existence of any individual right (whether natural or
civil) to trade in alcoholic liquors. The second theory is
one which has received the sanction of Mr. John Stuart
Mill. The gist of his plea is contained in this sentence,
"The infringement complained of is not on the liberty of
the seller, but on that of the buyer and consumer; since
the State might just as well forbid him to drink wine, as
purposely make it impossible to attain it." The liberty thus
claimed is the liberty of purchase; yet Mr. Mill is content
with asserting the claim, and does not advance a single
reason in defence of the proposition that some one ought
to be at liberty to sell strong drink because another per son wants to use it. The only way of proving this would
I.59