Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1854-05-19
rm rAxuYAcruaE QUESTION.


perance men. in regard to Is. or Of
vitslimportance at this time.
That there is some difference Of
opinion, as TO what is best, none will
deny. Some. conceiving that in ev-
cry form. and under all circumstances.
alcoholis mischievous, aim at an en-
tire and unconditional suppressions of
its manufacture. Others. supposing
that most ofthe evils can be prevented
by throwing judicious restrictions a.
round the sale Of It. do not propose to
restrict the manufacture, but to take
an oversight of the liquors. even in the
manufacturer hands, and not allow
1t to be sold by him, or others. SO that
Il viii likely End its way into the tip
ping houses, or elsewhere. as an arti-
Gle Of beverage. This class embraces.
we believe. a large majority fthe tenn
perance men Of Indiana. and Of the
United States. Such we conceive to
be the position assumed by the late
State Convention. and also BY the Grand
Division of the Sons ofTemperance.
We are aware that, both in the Con-
vention, and in the Grand Division,
motions have been frequently made to
strike out the modifying clause, "as a
beverage. and make an unconditional
attack upon spirituous liquors in every
form. but such motions have found but
few advocates and Few votes. This
position Of the convention we believe
Is right. Il accords with our own
views Of what is demanded. and hence
we can advocate it not only as a mat
ter Of policy. but also from the love Of
IL.
In some former articles we alluded to
this subject In our aim at brevity,'
We may not have been sufficiently ex-
plicit. Rumors have reached US that
We have been misunderstood or mis-.
represented. or both. We have been
represented as favoring the manufac-
ture Of spirituous liquors. One peri
odical. edited by warm personal
friend. has been made TO say that
we are bidding for hs patronage cfths
distiiisrs. AL that we have to say Is
that these persons have misunderstood
and misrepresented US. One Of the
former articles certainly put the distil-
Ter and his co-laborers, the corn-rais-
ers. in no enviable position. With
Us, however, the question is. how far
shall law restrain these jointproducers
Of the deadly poison-for wc know
no difference morally, between the
oorn.raiser--wood chopper. wood haul
ers. cooper or distiller. At present.
when at least nine tenths Of the pro-
ducts Of their joint labor. go to de-
s,roying men. soul and body. we place
them all on par, morally, with their
partner and fellow laborer. the tip
ping house keeper. When the time
comes, as come II viii. when alcohol
will be used only for lawful purposes,
then the whole band Of them may pur-
sue their avocaiion as innocently and
as honorably as any other class Of
useful citizens.
But the question now before the
temperance world Is legal inierposition.
Simply as 4 moral question, the whole
subject has had It's day. and received
in all It's bra inches. unmistakable repro
baton.
We now ask that law shall take cog
nirance Of this moral question. as il
does Of the moral questions OF steal
ing. adultery. arson. false swearing
murder. etc. The question then is
where shall legal restraint begin'
In our former articles we assumed
as granted, that alcoholic or spirituous
liquors might be manufactured for
mechanical and medicinal purposes
We assumed also. that the law ought
not to prevent this. And. as II would
be impossible to prevent fraud by say
ing that il should be manufactured for
no other purpose. we said in Brief
"Let the manufacture be unrestrained
only do not allow the manufacturer to
keep a tipping house or sell to those
that do" This sentence is brief, but
We thought II sufficiently explicit to
embrace all that is contemplated by
the resolutions Of the State Temper.
ance Convention. We believe yet thai
it does comport precisely with those
resolutions.
That this is correct epitome o
those resolutions will appear. we thinl
from the following article from th'
Massachusetts, Anti-Liquor Law. Thi
law. it viii be remembered is regarded
by Neal Dow himself as better law
in its details. for the states in general
than the original Maine Law. W.
heard him so express himself soon al
ter its passage. and we heard his opin
- ~.I~-..I H.. ~.ox... e IL. -.