4 PROHIBITION. 



pressed for the "public good," then is there no stopping place. If 

 we are justified in suppressing one evil, then we are another and so 

 on until all are closed out. What kind of a state of society this would 

 lead to may be conjectured. The massacre of Saint Bartholomew 

 was only one application of the paternal principle ; when every sect 

 and party get to putting heads on to each otlier, then we may see 

 a perfect hell on earth. 



Then we may conclude that governmental interference in the 

 case of (tny evil is unjustifiable. However injurious it may be, and 

 however conduci\c it would be to the piiljlic welfare to have it re- 

 moved, it is plainly not the province of government to attempt to 

 do that vmvk. People may be unwise, immoral, imi)ure, corrupt, 

 and it is the business of government to look on as an idle spectator. 

 All cases of imbecility, immorality, impurity, are beyond its juris- 

 diction, "WW* with which it has no more to do than it has with bad 

 reli jrions. 



«• 



CRITICAL EVILS. 



But it may be said that, "Evil is the beginning of crime. To 

 claim that a man may be arrested after getting drunk and not pre- 

 vented from getting drunk is folly. It would be like damming up 

 a stream without stopping the spring, or locking the stable door 

 after the horse had been stolen. As prohibitionists we do not claim 

 to suppress all evil, only its dangerous character, whicli, at any mo- 

 ment, may break out into a crime." 



But murder often results from anger, slander from malice, theft 

 from avarice ; shall the State therefore suppress anger, malice and 

 avarice ? Can we tell just where anger leaves ofl" and nnu'der com- 

 mences ? Are we sure tliat all cases of drinking will result in a 

 crime, or that any particular case will ? If not, then the arrest of 

 evil, on the ground that it will terminate in crime is purely con- 

 structional, (lep(!ndent \\\w\\ public opinion. If the critical condi- 

 tion of all evils is tiius to be left to Madame (Jrundy, who is safe ? 



"But," says the proiii])ilionist, "neither can any prove that a 

 critical f\il will not result in a crime ; the probabilities arc that 

 it will, who is then to indemnify society against the risk?" But 

 this is an entirely dific'rent thing from prohibition. Iku-ausc the 

 critical condition of mules is such tliat they somelimes kick, is an 

 amendment to tiie Constitution to be advocated abolisliin<r mules ? 

 Houses Hometimes burn, should they, therefore, those that do and 

 those that do not, all be prohibited ? No : i)rohibition is not the 



