license has been found as valueless for the whole people as restriction
for the individual. Appetite, when once depraved, becomes, in the
individual, lawless, exacting and unscrupulous; not hesitating to
trample on duty, justice, humanity and every public and private virtue.
It will keep no faith; it will hold to no pledge, however solemnly
taken. It must be wholly denied or it will be wholly master.

As in the individual, so in the nation, State or community. Appetite
loses nothing by aggregation; nor are the laws of its action changed. If
not denied by prohibition in the State, as by total abstinence in the
individual, it will continue to entail upon the people loss and ruin and
unutterable woes. License, restrictive permission, tax, all will be vain
in the future as they have been in the past. There is no hope, no help,
no refuge in anything but _Prohibition_!

And here we art met by two questions, fairly and honestly asked. First.
Is prohibition right in the abstract as a legislative measure? Second.
Can prohibitory laws be enforced, and will they cure the evil of
drunkenness?

First, as to the question of legislative action. Can the State forbid
the sale of intoxicating drinks as a beverage without violating the
natural right of certain citizens, engaged in the manufacture and sale
of these articles, to supply them to customers who wish to purchase?

We answer, that no man has a natural right to do wrong; that is, to
engage in any pursuit by which he makes gain out of loss and injury to
his neighbor. The essential principle of government is the well-being of
the people. It guarantees to the weak, security against the strong; it
punishes evil doers, and seeks to protect its citizens from the evil