The Ohio organ, of the temperance reform. (Cincinnati, [Ohio]) 1853-1854, 1853-12-02

.
statutes which appeared to dabble
with the fruit and leaves Of the tree
Of feYil, but this law cutit up By the
roots, and exterminated itAit went
right down to the root Of the poison
GUS upas and took its hold there. The
Maine Law proposed to 60 down to
the traffic in intoxicating liquors, and
stop the sale Of it, and thus cure the
evil, against which the friends Of tenn
perance had been so long struggling.
Now, what did the objectors say ?
They said we could not help forward
the cause Of temperance by law--we'
could not force men to be good,-we
could not purify the heart by law
that the heart must be affected by
moral influence. ~
Itwas true that we could not az
feet the heart directly by law, but we
could stop the traffic in intoxicating
drinks, and thus deliver the degraded
drunkard from temptation, and thus
leave his heart free and open to moral
influences. aa
Now, there was great cry about
moral suasion; and who were those
that cried out the loudest in favor of
moral suasion ? 1t was those who
were dealing out the liquid poison to
the poor inebriate. At the same time
that they were crying out in favor of
moral suasiOn, they were crying up
gin. cocktails, brandy smashes and mint
juleps. These men were like Ger.
4 tain boy, who was found crying lusti-
ly, and when asked what the matter
was, said that he wanted to be paci-
fled, and his mother wouldn't pacify
him. ausi
/ 1t was true that moral suasion had
done a great work. 1t had saved
thousands Of drunkards from a prema-
ture grave. 1t had reached those who
were sunken to the very lowest degree
in degradation, and brought out from
the lowest hells of infamy whole ar
my Of the redeemed, with their bro.
ken chains in their hands. And a
/ great many of them never fell again.
But on the otherhand, many ofthem
had fallen back upon their old practi-
ces. The doors of the grog shops
were still left open to them, and the
temptation reused their ungovernable
appetite, and they were sucked back
into the hells Of intemperance. Now,
the only way to redeem these, was to
remove the temptation, by prohibit
ing the traffic.
Il But to come to the argument, that
the prohibitory law could not convert
men to temperance. He agreed that
it could never affect the will of those
/ who desired to drink. But could not
every one see that this argument
/ proved too much ?--for if it was car
/ ried out, we should have to do away
/ with all laws. No law could make men
better at heart. If man desired to
commit arson Ito burn down the
house of his neghbor, at night, and
thus jeopardize the lives ofits inmates,
the law against that crime could not
destroy that desire and this was
equally true in reference to theft,
murder, or any other crime. What
then? would they say that the laws
against such crimes were wrong also?
No they would say-the law is not
to destroy the property for crime, but
to prevent the overt act. Well, then,
if it was right to have laws to prevent
the overt act of stealing, house burn
ing, or murder, why should we not
have laws to prevent the overt act of
intemperance, which was the primary
cause Of many of these crimes? They
did not expect the prohibitory law was
going to make men better, by destroy
ing their appetite for alcoholic stimu-
\ lants, but it would stop the overt act