The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1851-11-11
ptsw lhsalpstsass MSvsaasAh


NsW FsnlrstEass M6vsfassAts II
W. think our temperance friends have exhaust |
ed the argument upon their New Temperance |
Movement y; and in so doing they have, we must |
frankly state, shown little temperance they
can accomplish all that they may legitimately |
seek, if they can wean men from the injudicious
use Of ardent spirits, il they reform the inebri
ate into the useful citizen, they have our hearty
God speed!
But we believe their cause to be legtimately
one Of "moral suasion." II they pass beyond
that. il they mix themselves up as Third Party,
in partisan contests, if they become clamorous
for political influence to force moral reform, We
beieve their influence is gone, and their organiza
ton must be rudsly shattered in the party con-
tests they provoke.
What have they to bring into politics? One
measure or principle, that men should be abstnent
or temperate in the use Of ardent spirits. Absti-
nent they cannot force men, by legislation, to be.
They cannot pry into the private habits of men.
They cannot, without legal search warrants, upon
sworn grounds, enter into mans private premi-
SEES. Their principle or measure is good enough,
abstractly. All men should be virtuous but how
to make them SO, that is the question. Three
thousand years Of legislation, even that which
Numbered from Mount Sinai, has not made them
SO are /" New Temperance Movements to ao-
complish grander results >?
1t will mot do to answer, that we are to try to
make men more moral, to make them better by
compulsory means. What is wrong? What is
right? What is peaceable? What initiates
against the peace Of society2 These are questions
to be answered in the confidence Of private opin-
ion or prejudice, and we know whete that leads
There class meetings. public professions, in q
Methodist Church; we have had able, eloquent,
and even amiable men, to denounce them to us as
immoral, and tending to the grossest social abu-
ses There is the confessional in the Catholic
Church: we have found men dsnouncing it in the
most sweeping terms, az grossly, unpardonably,
beyond all vindication immoral. Are these men
to step in and legislate upon these things, because
they believe them to be immoral and injurious
They are sincere as our temperance friends-per.
hsps more thoroughly confirmed than they in their
prejudices convictions. II so, what becomes Of
religious freedom? There is no lodging this
point, because the argument is, that when one is
sincerely convinced that certain habits are wrong
or immoral, he has right to interfere, and, if he
can, legislate.
So the argument runs. 1t expands into an
ocean, and has no visible boundaries We argue
, that habits and tastes should not be legislated
upon; that positive acts of offence or injury
should be. We SO argue, for this simple reason
that positive acts of offence are tangible; that
: habits and tastes are not. And we plainly dis.
tinctly declare, that our belief u.s. that the mere
, fact of mans taking glass of spirituous Ii
quor is not, of itself, an immoral or offensive
act.
We do not speak of consequences probable OF
|. possible. The law does not cannot and
should not, with any regard to the liberty of the
citizen, legisate upon probabilities or possibilities
We do not object that it provides for these but
il necessarily waits until they become facts, or
rather acts, and then, and not before, applies to
them. Our Temperance friends argue that pro.
badly or possibly, the facilities 1--WE use theiI
own term to strengthen the argumenD of drink.
ing may lead to intemperance, 10 social wrong
to vice and crime. May is not does >
Improbable" is not certain Why cannot oul
: Temperance friends move through the agencies
Of moral suasion +" and abide the issue of III,
law for any criminal results of drinking! They
!. wish to go to the " Fountain Head" Tn,
phrase is taking, but to how many other thing
will 1t not apply! We have 1--WE say again
!. heard able. amiable, eloquent and eminent gen
= tlemen pretend to trace innumerable social evil
!, and crimes. to the class meetings of the Metho
v dis,s, the confessional of the Catholics, tn
% gloomy conferences of other religionisu. Ar
y they to legislaie on such convictions
al We say distinctly, no. We say, for tn
cause Of morality, of free opinion, of religion.
Q temperance, no! We say again, let habit pas
into excess, and then, meet it with the penalt
Of the law. 1t is very easy to manufacture
, taking" generalities, but it is difficult to &c
over the point, that acts. and not tastes, habits
. and opinions, are to be touched by law.
It Our Temperance correspondents do their e,
]. cellent cause injustice. They are TOO vague
declamatory, insubstantia, to afford the found,
y ton Of an answer. They cannot or will not
" logical, and appreciate the relations of thing
IS One Of them (whose Communication we publis
today argues somewhat in this wise: an
y drinking is incompetence; intemperance is
crime; the object Of legislation should be to SUI
press crime. Here is fallacy OVERLAPPING fallac,
drinking is not necessarily intempeance; ar
J., incompetence is not, per SO, crime. Its cons
dy quences may be criminal, but of ITSELF like e
m. cessive eating, smoking, etc., it is only vic
in. The same correspondent argues, further, som
" what in this wise-but we will quote his la
IN guage in reference tn tho Ecerss s,s, &c