The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1851-11-05

j Nsw Tsmpsranee 1Gevsment.
"Ws c9pnot Say, howeser desirable it 10 that all
mon sho1ldbe temperate, that we approve 81 me
attemps UnAke matter of individual habit ana
taaie, the inject Of legislation" Crescent.
S MBasns. EDfreRs- Temperance men do not
seehs any where, 70 legialase on the habits and
tasasof other men, who choose 70 be in,emperatss
they claim for society, the right to protect itself
againss such of it, members o. may wish 70 live by
creating, fostering, and satisfying the vicious APP
petites Of others. Temperance men would secure
reform BY Perssading the teupted-but they say,
and truly. that the texpser con be reached only by
other and far different influences.
Society should remove the protection Of law from
al drinking houses, as it has already from gam
bling and disorderly houses.
Is Society should receive no more revenue from
such source, for such revenue is the price Of sin
and death. and Gods curse is upon it. 4
Rs1psu6aly. CRYSTAL Fousr.
Nsr Orleass. October a. 1851.
We cheenully admit our correspondents com
munication; and beg that he and others will not
misunderstand US. We are disposed to encourage
all movements in behalf of moral reform, il they
violate great principle nor by their utraism en-
danger personal liberty and the harmony Of society.
Our Temperance friend will, we doubt not, bear
testimony to the cheerfulness with which we lend
our columns and our pen, to the advocacy Of the
special reform he appears to have much at heart;
and we see plainly, as he must, that our interest
would lead us to side with even the most ultra
ments in behalf of his favorite views. But so
az and thatvx dr
hesitate to approach the discussion Of the subject
brought forward by him and Others
II our correspondent and his allies in this move
ment meant nothing more than the destruction of
all laws fer granting licenses to drinking houses,
we would merely say that the measure was unwise
and calculated to multiply those establishments
They plainly mean something else, and design to
enact prohibitory laws, or their whole movement
is imperative They design reforming" men in
the matter Of drinking by closing up all coffee
houses
We object to this. II is lsgisating upon the
habits, tastes and moral convictions of men. 1t
throws a new element into politics which must
disturb the equpoise Of parties and form between
them third party, the existence Of which is al
ways to be deprecated. 1t tends to the dangerous
conclusion, that according to the convictions of
members of an organization, men shall be COM
PEELED by law to shape their morals and habits
In this last point rests the chief weight of our
objections and the argument in the premises
may be very briefly stunned up. Moral habits
are differently judged Of by different men. Some
men land we think the originators of this move-
ment are of the numberl think it is immoral, or
at least highly reprshenslble, TO use wines or Ii
quors others, forming much the larger body, do
not coincide in this view. We look upon the
matter in this light: the use Of wines and Ii
quors is not of itself immoral or censurable the
abuse Of them is.
On this an argument may hang, that drinking
houses, kept open as they are night and day
offer continual temptation to the abuse, under the
convenient excuse Of sociability. There is force
in the observation, and it deserves consideration
but from all the information we can gather, we
must question if a law closing them would be
any reform whatever, would not be easily evaded
and lead to more serious dissipation of grossel
and more repulsive character. The man who
takes his drink for the sake of sociability, al
men generally drink in public houses, may be
in the way Of fatal temptation, but he he is not
under the vigilant regard of the public and hii
friends, liable to become the utterly dsbased
the insatiably craving, the pitifuily abject crea
ture the solitary drinker-the "private jug" man
il apt 10 become. If the law should peremptori
ly close all drinking houses, we, therefore, ap
prehend that the effect would be anything bu
salutary-that the habit Of solitary drinking,
most dangerous and pernicious one, would be in
creased, even supposing that the law could no
be evaded. We understand that this is found t
have been the case in Massachusetts. We
therefore, fear that in this new movement" on
Temperance friends are retarding, not advancin
reform.
But our objections 60 further and deeper tina
this AT the bottom of this movement lies the dau
gerous principle that we may may legislate upo
the habits of men, where those habits may POI
sibly lead to dangerous and improper excess~'
1t will scarcely be commended that the mere us
of wines and liquors is Of itself immoral and 6
reprehensible as to call for the interposition
the law. 1t cannot be immoral or seriously reI
rehensible to sell what it is not immoral or rel
rehensible to use. 1t is the abuse not the US
which the proposed legislation is designed |
roach. Let that legislation. then, commenc
with the abuse and be as stringent as r.
formers please. Drunkenness is no justifcauo
Of crime, wrong or outrage. If an intoxicate
man rob, steal, murder or disturb the peace, |,
him be severely punished, and his state of il
toxicaton be held an aggravaiion of his Offence
We are willing to that.
But let there be no such dangerous and incor
rect principle established as that we may legisal
upon habits for, after all, the use Of wines ar
liquors is a habit only, and offence until
passes into intoxcation and its consequence
Then the law may properly step in with its pena
ties and correctives. This matter OF legislatn
upon habits with view to advance morality, is
dangerous thing; and, however commendable IL
feeling in which it originates, is liable to pass in
ultraisms. 1t seems to us wiser, better and. SAT
to wait until habit passes into excess, and violat
the order and decency of society, and then to me
it with the rebuke and penalties Of the la,
Add to this the influence Of moral persuasion, Il
| aevere nuhlic saneo Of ,ron,o,, 80.