Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

dent universality of the beastly habit, and I appeal therefore from Noah sober to Noah drunk. It makes little difference in what degree of consanguinity he may stand to us, or at what generation the family-failing, by a kind of atavism, became the inheritance of all our relatives. In this I am a Lamarckian. How difficult, therefore, the complete triumph of Prohibition may prove!

Tobacco in comparison is a mere chance habit, a whim of a passing day; for it was introduced only three hundred and forty years ago an affectation borrowed from a sluggish and savage race, unfit for civilization! It at once excited the disgust of many. Its ardent opponents counted among their number 'the wisest fool in Christendom.' The wisdom of James the First was canny Scotch wisdom. His proclamation of 1619 was quite in accord with the economical advice I have given above; for therein he urged the settlers of Virginia 'rather to turn their spare time toward providing corn and stock, and toward the making of potash or other manufactures.' He carried his opposition so far that in order to protect his people from the noxious drug he preempted all that was imported and sold it again at higher prices. (MACPHERSON: Annals of Commerce, II, 302.)

But that which a despotic government could not control in a distant colony may be readily achieved by a free and highly centralized democracy.

Note especially that the habit of drinking, however loathsome to the drinker, is not so offensive as that of smoking to his fellows, whom it is the function of Government to protect. What right has the smoker to discharge his by-product in my face? Why should I, drugged against my will, lose my sleep because another smokes? If the particles of smoke were larger, like

stones, it would surely be assault and battery; but the size is merely a question of degree, and not of principle. No one, nowadays, throws whiskey at me in the street. There is, moreover, a. real precedent in Pennsylvania for the prohibition of tobacco. (Act of October 28, 1701, Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, p. 68.) The Act is probably in force now, for I find no record of its repeal. It provides that if any person shall presume to smoke tobacco in the streets of Philadelphia, either by day or night, he or she shall, for every such offense, forfeit twelvepence, et cetera. Alas, how soon salutary legislation falls into desuetude, unless protected by heavy penalties, or enforced with eternal vigilance!

Moreover, in the ingrained prejudice of the people, liquor is, or is alleged to be, quite beneficial in some diseases, and even necessary to save life in others; but no one, I believe, or if any certainly only a few, can be considered absolutely dependent upon nicotine for existence. If by the prohibition of wine a few old, feeble, and useless members of society are rightly sacrificed to the public good, how much more readily the fewer and more offensive victims of their own vice?

There are precedents for such action in the cigarette laws of many States, in our own Act of 1901 providing that tobacco is not to be sold or given to any person under sixteen years (Act July 10, 1901, Purdon's Digest, p. 1014) and that of 1903 against selling cigarettes to any person under twenty-one (Act April 4, 1903, Purd. Dig. p. 917.) This Act recites: 'Whereas the smoking of cigarettes is injurious to the young.' This opinion, being the law of the State, cannot be now legally controverted. There is also an early precedent for the absolute prohibition of the public smoking of tobacco in the Connecticut Code of 1650.

If, however, this reform is attempted, it is important that all stocks of the offending substance should be destroyed. This precaution was omitted in the present Prohibition Amendment and the Volstead Act, and the occasional infractions of that Act may be attributed to the fact that it is merely prohibitive and does not strike at the basic fact in the production of liquor. Readers of history will recall the decree of Domitian, who, on account of a plentiful wine crop attended with scarcity of grain, forbade anyone planting any more vines in Italy, and ordered the vineyards in the provinces to be cut down, or but half left standing. Unfortunately the attempt was abandoned by that Emperor.

Ahab, King of Israel, on a smaller scale but with stronger arm than Domitian, displayed a similar enlightened policy. For he expropriated the vineyard of Naboth in order to eradicate its vines and replant it with potherbs. (I Kings XXI.) It is to be noted that Ahab offered Naboth the value of his vineyard in money; but this would not be necessary in this country where the expensive method of condemnation is avoided and the property is taken under the police power. A similar policy, broader than Ahab's, less vacillating than Domitian's, pursued in our country would materially diminish infractions of the Prohibition law. It would only be necessary to prohibit the growth of every substance out of which alcohol can be made, such as wheat, corn, rye, barley, potatoes, apples, peaches, and other fruit.

II

Any act of this character will require teeth, and this brings us to the second principle of the New Liberty, which is that all reform legislation must have the sanction of severe penalties vigorously enforced.

I pause to explain that this expression 'to put teeth into an act' had its origin in a very early prohibitory measure. That was the act prohibiting mice from eating cheese. According to the ancient story as related in an old law book, 'The women were much concerned at the continued depredations on their stores. A body of very wise men had an Act passed with half the words in the English language and backed by all the rhetoric of Lincoln's Inn, that it should be death without benefit of clergy for a mouse to eat cheese. Still the pantries were robbed and the lawgivers laughed at. A sage cat armed and clad in scarlet, having crept into the Senate House through a borough, urged that he be allowed to execute the decree.' The rest of the story is well known. Since then the language has been enriched with the phrase a 'law with teeth in it,' and mice are on their good behavior.

The policy of putting teeth in laws, according to the feline system was formerly very frequent. The Israelites adopted it in the law punishing with death the gathering of sticks on the Sabbath. King Charlemagne followed it in the law which made eating meat in Lent a capital crime. English law adopted it in King Henry the Fourth's law for the burning of heretics, and it is an ascertained fact that the countries in which men do not build fires on Sunday, and never eat meat in Lent, and never turn heretic, are the same countries in which mice never eat cheese.

In order to put teeth into a law, it is, fortunately, not necessary to resort to capital punishment; according to the papers a judge at New Castle, Pennsylvania, has just sentenced one John Bowie, accused of transporting liquor, to attend church every Sunday for two years, apparently with no time off for good behavior. So I suppose the sentence will be carried out, unless the ac

cused obtain a release by habeas corpus, on the ground of the constitutional inhibition of cruel and unusual punishments.

III

Third. Another principle of the New Liberty is the principle of Administrative Authority. Under this more and more power is being granted to Federal, State, and Municipal Officers, enabling them to carry out the laws of all kinds.

The General Government has a supervision, now ripening into control, of transportation, banking, and in general of trade. These powers, joined to that over the mails, the secret service, and a number of bureaus, enable the Washington authorities to trace out and prevent any machinations of the individual that are seen to be contrary to the general interest. Closer teamwork is still desirable between the Federal and State Governments, but the latter are naturally learning that the greater must direct the less.

An example of this principle is the Act passed by the last Legislature of Pennsylvania, authorizing the Secretary of Banking, whenever he is of the opinion that a Banking Institution is 'in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue business,' to enter upon its office and close it up. Under the present law the Commissioner takes immediate possession without recourse to the Courts and the Banking Institution is entitled to reestablish its credit by application to the court afterward.

It is remarkable that no such law has yet been adopted for food inspection and destruction. If the Board of Health were given authority not only to seize and destroy bad food, but to close the shop of the offending seller, preferably with a padlock, it would effectually put the wrongdoer out of business, probably permanently, and

thus improve the conditions of life.

If any mistake is made by the administrative official, the individual has immediate recourse to court, and the burden of proof is thereby shifted to the accused, where according to many systems of legislation it rightly belongs.

Another Act of the Pennsylvania Legislature of 1923 provides the number of pounds to the bushel in some eighty-one articles, and the close observance of this law would no doubt make for much regularity in merchandising. It provides that a bushel of spinach shall contain twelve pounds, and a bushel of sand one hundred pounds. What weight shall be satisfied when the spinach contains sandalas! too often the case is not provided. The Act is patterned upon the principle of the Act of 1797 (Purd. Dig. Vol. 1, p. 540), which provided that all loaf bread made for sale within this Commonwealth shall be sold by the pound avoirdupois, under penalty for infraction. This Act is still in force. It is true that the Bread Act, so far, has had no appreciable effect, except to allow a dishonest purchaser to avoid payment of his debt, but this is because the Act stands alone. If there were similar acts dealing with all articles, and requiring all to be sold by weight, and each of these acts was diligently followed up by a corps of Government Agents, zealous, patriotic, wellpaid and incorruptible, there would be a different story to tell. Some exception might have to be made in the Act as to selling by the pound such articles as gas, electric current, and real estate.

It is difficult to deal with such subjects by State Legislation, as all eyes look to Congress; and it is evident that remedial legislation on this subject. should be general because there is no State in the Union in which bread is not sold. Accordingly Charles H. Brand, a Member of the House of Representa

tives, introduced into the last Congress a bill for the Federal Regulation of the size and sale of loaves. A survey made by the Director of the Bureau of Standards revealed a fact which few would have imagined that one hundred and five different-sized loaves of bread are made in Pennsylvania alone; four thousand loaves of bread varying from ten to forty-eight ounces each were weighed and found to be sold to the public at varying prices.

This is quite at variance with the legislative policy of the State from its earliest times. The Act of November 27, 1700, provided that all bread should be sold by Troy-weight; that only three kinds should be baked, viz.: white, wheaten, and household, and no more; 'and the loaves shall be a penny loaf or roll, a five-penny loaf, and a ten-penny loaf; and that if any of these exceed the assize in fineness or weight, it shall be equally seizable as if it were under the fineness or weight.'

Now it is a fact about bread that the heavier it is the more it weighs, and therefore the more it would cost if sold by weight; and the lighter it is the better it is, and yet would be sold for less; but everyone would of course buy the cheapest, so that a proper Act would not only ensure fairness in dealing, but would bring the best bread within the reach of the poorest persons- an end an end not always attained by legislation.

Acts of Assembly, in fact, should not be allowed to become obsolete, for laws are like bread and eggs. Pan d'un di, ovo d'un hora, says an old proverb. (Bread one day old, an egg one hour.) A number of these 'moth-eaten' laws call loudly for enforcement. I might mention those against blasphemy, gambling, baggage-smashing, pool-selling, as well as the Act of 1919, providing a penalty for selling as fresh eggs, eggs which are not fresh eggs.

There was an interesting law passed

many years ago in South Carolina, which is an illustration of the dangers of laws becoming obsolete, unless reenacted. The law provided that every male citizen of age should attend church, fully armed, and this law may still be on the Statute Book, the legislators not thinking it safe, perhaps, in that jurisdiction, to repeal it. The peculiarity of this enactment is that it is directly contrary to the rule of early Christian times, which forbade bringing arms into the church.

Locke in the celebrated constitution which he drew for Carolina provided that any laws not reenacted should become obsolete in a hundred years. But as this constitution never went fully into effect no harm was done.

IV

A fourth principle of the New Liberty is Uplift; that is that adequate laws shall be passed for the Welfare of the People. President Coolidge expressed in his message of December 1923 the opinion that the Government was not doing enough for the general welfare. Carrying out this policy the President, on April 13, 1924, appointed a Commission to formulate a National Out-of-Door Policy. We may rejoice then in one great step taken by the Pennsylvania Legislature, in passing the Act creating an Athletic Commission. This Act provides for three Commissioners, at a salary of $5000 each; and a Secretary, with a salary of $3000; also, for the appointment of Referees to superintend prize fights. It was modeled, I believe, upon the legislation of New York State. It was, indeed, somewhat of an inconsistency that the same Legislature reduced the appropriation to sundry hospitals, in which the participants in these fights may expect to be treated. Some will think it also an inconsistency that

prize fighting and boxing had been made illegal by the Acts of March 16, 1866, and March 22, 1867; but we must not allow ourselves to be dismayed by those slight inconsistencies which are the essential mark of a progressive legislative policy.

Although in the right direction the Act was a mere step. The modern world fully realizes the need of clean, compensated, and professional sport, and there should indeed be similar acts providing for commissions for baseball, golf, and also, and probably especially, for games of chance. A proper encouragement should be extended to new games. Mah Jongg is struggling for recognition, and should be protected, as an infant amusement.

It is a matter of great regret that, while considerable time has been devoted by the legislators to sport, they neglected to pass an Act, presented with almost providential forethought by Representative Eaches- namely the Act allowing fishing on Sunday with one line and two hooks.

A great advance in the direction of welfare has also been made in the creation of holidays, which increase, and never diminish. In general, idleness is of benefit to a nation; Aristotle says that leisure is the first object of the legislator-which is one of the few judgments in which ancient and modern sentiment agrees. Much of this advantage is lost, unless leisure is made universal and compulsory. As the law stands now, a man may work or not on a holiday, as he pleases, and so it happens that certain people, animated by aggressive self-interest, and a plentiful lack of social instinct, work on holidays, and thereby gain an advantage over their fellows; this destroys the balance of equality, which is so essential in a free country. A law should therefore be passed, preventing work on any part of a legal holiday.

This is in accordance with the policy of the Trade-unions, which is now established by general acceptance, and has become regular in all the principal trades. The Sunday laws could readily be extended from holy days to holidays, the old distinction between the two having passed away.

The suggestion that laws be passed for the sterilization of criminals is highly scientific, and there are precedents for it in our Colonial laws. Once adopted the principle is capable of extension to even more necessary fields. We all know that it is not criminal people that annoy us so much as it is disagreeable people. Criminals are rather favorites with some. Criminals are indeed a meaningless category to many in a democracy. Says 'the good Gray Poet' in voicing the New America:—

To me any Judge or juror is equally criminal, and any respectable person, and also the President is.

In fact in a democracy the popular, and therefore the true, idea is that what is disagreeable by the Vox Populi is criminal by Vox Dei. What, therefore, shall be done with bores, and talkative people, who perhaps outnumber the criminals, and often incite to crime? For those who believe that comfort and health-giving environment are necessary to civilization, the bore is a menace, not only to contemporaries but still more to succeeding ages. What particular bêtes noires should be prevented from intruding their posterity upon the next generation should be decided by a mixed commission made up of both sexes and all parties, so that no mistake could be made.

For the improvement of the race also, it would be well to enact laws based upon the laws formerly in vogue in many cities of Germany, preventing

« ElőzőTovább »