07 Dec




















should be protected by an inhibition of the sale of the dan- gerous and deadly weapon. But let us suppose that a great manufactory of pistols had been built up in Nashville, in- volving an investment of, say a milion dollars, under the sanction of protecting law, and suppose the legislature should enact a law prohibiting the manufacture of pistols in Ten- nessee, and by such an enactment cause the pistol manu- facturer a loss of half a million dollars. Would he not feel that he had a just claim against the state for some repara- tion, in that his business was not unlawful until the new law that destroyed it was enacted? While it is a recognized principle of government that the individual must suffer for the good of the community if it be necessary, does not a consideration of equity obtain in the practical confication of property where there has been no violation of law upon the part of the owner and when the property has been built up with the consent and by the encouragement of the state? This question does not involve the right of a state to pro- mote temperance, except incidentally, but it seems to be a question involving property rights under the law. The same thing happened in Iowa and Kansas when prohibition was introduced. It seems that when people approach the liquor question they leave their common-sense and their feelings of fairness and equity 105 The Rule of "Not Too Much." behind, they cannot think straight, being usually undei

Comments
* The email will not be published on the website.
I BUILT MY SITE FOR FREE USING