The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1855-03-24
Gle CoutrouersioIist.
For The CccH Wig.
A PROIiIHITORY LAW.
a y SIAN THUS.
PoRr DEPOSIT, March 18th, Z


Nix. EplroR We intend pursuing this
meaningless controversy with Harold no fur
thcr than this present article. His ungcn-
tlcmanly conduct in this matter, is more
than we are able or willing to cope with.
Our first letter in reply to him was couchcd
in respectable language, and contained moth
ing Of personal nature. We may have
been rather rash in some of the expressions
used in that article, but nothing Of an often
siyc character was intended We merely
wished that the truth should be brought out,
and hence we expected Harold to address him
self exclusively to the subject under discus
sion in his reply: but every reader knows
how well he performed his part in that res
poet.
1t was plainly to be seen that Harold was
not friend to Prohibition, although he sub
scquently declared that he was. 1t would
seem as if he aimed to screen his cnmity to
this measure behind his pretended friend
ship. We are aware that our defence of this
question has not been as able as many others
could have made; but where duty calls, we
never pause to question the cxpedicncy of
action Although but a ''young Champion"
we are not so young as to regard the frown
or smile of men
Gas loss or gucrdon Of glorious lot,''
when we have right upon our side, but in
the language ola departed veteran, we Task
no favors, and shrink from no responsible
ties" This pseudo logician reminds us very
much Of The Ambitious Goose in Lessing's
fable of that title.
We shall not attempt to follow up IIarold's
irrelevant ycrbosity, but simply notice two
or three points in his last article, and then
lay down the premises upon which alone We
will argue.
Harold manmuvrcs rather adroitly in his
attempts to get over tho question of rights.
We said that there were no u,dir1duGl rights
when they conflict Nth the comfort or enjoy
mem Of others. He says that he "has right
10 engage in pleasant recreation. but not in
church," That is just precisely what we
say, vz:-that men may enjoy themselves
when that enjoyment docs not interfere with
the comfort of their ncighbors.
There is another point for which he appears
to have a peculiar affection, viz that the
fashionable circles are above law" The
rich can be ntcrftred with by the law. 1t
would not be violation of law for them to
import liquor or to give it away; but it rouM
be violation of law for them to sell it.
Hence you will observe that Prohibitory
law is not respcctor Of persons. We arc
aware that Prohibitory law would be las
many others are,) clandestinely mot elandes-
tircly,) evadcd in different ways by unprinci-
pied persons, but We contend, what past OK
periencc shows, that the evils resulting from
an indiscrminatc sale of intoxicating liquor
would be lcsscned by such law.
Harold says that Neal Dow has introduced
a supplementary bill into the Legislature to
stop the leaks in the law. That is true. 1t
is not to be expected that law of this sort
should be complete in its incipiency. Its
defects are to be discovered only by expcr-
fence. The conduct Of the Legislature Of
Maine upon this question exhibits the esteem
in which a Prohibitory law is held by the
people of that State.
Harold admits in his last letter what he
denied in former one, yiz:-that drinking