October 23, 1914] 



SCIENCE 



575 



ment various forms of abstinence, that 

 empty sort of moral felicity the real virtue 

 of which consists in the circumstance that 

 it may be followed later by some properly 

 regulated and supposedly innocuous in- 

 dulgence. The prohibition movement is 

 the best to consider here by way of ex- 

 ample because it is one of great force and 

 one that aims to combat a serious evil. 

 Any argument that is valid against it will 

 hold a fortiori against similar movements. 

 The misery caused by. drink, with all its 

 hygienic, economic and moral phases, ap- 

 peals dramatically to man's sympathy and 

 awakens the desire to do something to 

 mitigate it. To accomplish this no means 

 would seem simpler and more direct than 

 the prohibition of the sale of liquor by 

 law. The results of this method have not 

 been satisfactory, however, except perhaps 

 in small communities, because the habits 

 of mankind involved are treated merely as 

 so many physical obstacles to be thrust 

 aside by a calculated amount of force. It 

 is not reasonable to expect that a large 

 minority — within a fraction of fifty per 

 cent, in the state of Maine — will submit to 

 the regulation of their personal habits by 

 scarcely more numerous neighbors. Not 

 having the moral support of a large enough 

 proportion of the population, the laws are 

 violated to a scandalous degree. Thus, 

 while the intent of the prohibition laws 

 constitutes an unjust infringement of in- 

 dividual rights, their failure to accom- 

 plish their purpose, which is inevitable, is 

 responsible for evils far more fundamental 

 and more insidious than the drink habit 

 itself. This is realized by a great many 

 thoughtful persons but, incredible as it 

 may seem, opposition to the propaganda 

 of prohibition is left largely to those pe- 

 cuniarily interested in keeping the liquor 

 traffic intact. There are certainly some 

 most exasperating and disheartening as- 



pects of the liquor situation in this coun- 

 try — so many, in fact, that worthy citizens 

 sit in their clubs and drink, at the same 

 time giving a long list of reasons why they 

 vote "no license." Nevertheless a large 

 proportion of these evil features could 

 readily be eradicated if we had less of that 

 hypocrisy and cynical contempt for the 

 law that is engendered by the existence of 

 so many laws not really in accordance with 

 public opinion. The experience of other 

 countries amply justifies this view. 



The methods employed to obtain prohi- 

 bition legislation are often more objection- 

 able than the measures themselves. Public 

 opinion is aroused by protracted cam- 

 paigns led by paid agitators, where en- 

 thusiasm for the cause precludes all con- 

 sideration for opposing views and the 

 rights of the minority. The legislative 

 chambers become invaded by a veritable 

 lobby of political and moral intimidation, 

 and the final passage of an act is made the 

 occasion of scenes that belong to the time 

 of the crusades rather than to the present. 

 Even the halls of the national congress are 

 not exempt from such spectacles,* and yet 

 those who believe that important questions 

 should be settled with full knowledge and 

 in a fair and dispassionate spirit stand 

 aside and leave the opposing ground to the 

 brewery and the saloon. To tolerate such 

 methods for accomplishing even the most 

 worthy purpose constitutes the gravest 

 kind of danger to our political and social 

 organization. The pernicious habit once 

 acquired will surely be used for baser 

 ends. The art of exhortation is confined 

 neither to the righteous nor to the wise, 

 and much, if not all, of what is done by 

 the revivalist method will inevitably be 

 regretted in the light of reason and have 

 to be undone — often with difficulty. 



To attempt to stop drinking by legal 



4 December 11, 1913. 



