6 PROHIBITION. 



In reply, let us say that we have now reached that portion of 

 our subject, where we can assure the prohibitionists that they 

 are the instigators of license, and we the sticklers for order. 

 We propose to show to them that we are really more friendly to 

 them than they are to themselves. For, in exposing their errors, 

 we are prepared to rescue for them the real truth underlying their 

 cause. If this is rejected, there is not the least ground for them to 

 stand upon. 



How is it possible for the prohibitionists to detect the beginning 

 of ci'ime when they do not know where an evil leaves off ? How 

 can they ever expect to suppress the one, when they fail to allow 

 proper latitude for the other ? Without recognizing the proper 

 liberty for the individual how can they prescribe the jjroper order 

 for society ? In their utter confusion as to the line of deniarkation 

 between evils and crimes, must they not get tilings mixed ? And in 

 suppressing the things which ought not to be suppressed must they 

 not inevitably /rt«7 to siipprcss the very things which ought to be pro- 

 hibited ? Besides, in suppressing things which liave an equal riglit 

 to be free will they not be provoked to regain their equal rio-hts 

 through subterfuge and artifice ? And in tlius Ijrcaking loose from 

 SMchunnatural and arbiti'ary bonds, will they not, to find an equilib- 

 rium, go to tlie other extreme ? Then it is the prohibitionists, 

 wlio are tlie abettors of license and crime. In their blind frenzy 

 to pervert a republican form of government to ecclesiastical ends, 

 it never occurs to them to iitilize the common law against commoii 

 offenses ? Wliy have they never, under tlie law against fraud and 

 misrepresentation, indicted any saloon keeper for adulteration ? 

 Instead of preying upon the social recreations of the beer gai'den 

 and the wine table, why have they made no arrests for disturbing 

 the peace ? Instead of complaining that tlie licpior (ralfic confers no 

 good, but imjjoses such burdens upon the tax payers, why do they 

 not hold the individuals directly resjjonsible for the damages they 

 incur? If a drunkard cannot pay his fines, why is he not .sent to 

 an asylum to work it out ?* And if In; repeatedly disturbs the peace 

 and taxes the comimmity, why not keep him in an asylum until 

 .society is assured of no encroachment ? lint how could the prohibi- 

 tionists be expected to properly administer a government of which 

 they have no conception ? However, as advocates of "law and or- 



* If tho HiilDoii kci'pur gels the wiiguK of tlic drinker, who in then arrowted, and 

 hn« 110 money with which to pay hit* line, beside throwing his family on to the tax 

 paycifrt for support, how can they become indiMnnlllcd? f^an tlie saloon keei)er be 

 held iiH particf Jig crimmixf No the drinker must be held solely resjionsible for 

 the effect of his drinking; the saloon k('e|)<T simply dous the sellin},', the same ae 

 the selier of llrearms, or teas: be cannot be made resjionsible for what the users of 

 hesc articles do with them, The drinker should be made to remunerate the 

 tax payerp. 



