One of the cries raised in the rather recent past was that no sumptuary legislation should be permitted. Political parties were in the habit of writing into their platforms from year to year the statement that they were opposed to all such enactment. This declaration seldom failed to garner a harvest of votes from the self-styled liberal element. It was cheap and easy to make such a declaration, but it would not have been so easy to bolster it up with any reasonable defence. In the light of deeper thought, such a position appears not only unreasonable and ridiculous, but vicious and perilous as well. Were one to search the criminal code from the beginning to the end he could find no law which does not partake of the sumptuary nature. In one way or another, each provision sets a limit for human liberty. Each tells the citizen of a thing which he may not do and remain safe from the hand of the law. It does not do so because society wants to prescribe the rules of private conduct to be followed by any individual member. It does so because it must protect its peaceful members against the trespasses of those who do not regard the rights of others. The law against burglary, for instance, is really a sumptuary measure. It limits liberty at the point of taking the property of other people. No one complains of the injustice of such a law. The menace of burglary, however, does not compare with the menace which the saloon system has been. The law which prevents one man from selling and another from buying powerful narcotic and poisonous drugs is also a sumptuary provision. It limits human liberty at the point of eating and drinking. Seldom does any one complain about it. No other poison, however, has occupied so prominent a place and wrought such widespread havoc as has alcohol. The saloonkeeper has harmed society more than has the burglar. He should therefore suffer at least an equal degree of restraint. Liquor has worked more damage than has any other article of common sale. There is, therefore, no reason why its manufacture and sale should not be affected by at least the same safeguards as those surrounding the manufacture and distribution of other dangerous drugs. A kindred complaint from the liquor champions has been that the government shows increasing signs of the spirit of paternalism. The contention is that the prohibition reformer represents a meddlesome class who want to control the lives of others. As is the case with the first claim mentioned, this proposition needs but a second look. No proper government and no thoughtful citizen desires the mere power to control the conduct of other people. Especially have we tried to foster the spirit of freedom in America. No one who loves his country wants unduly to destroy or interfere with the liberty for which the nation stands.