The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1855-02-10
Che Goutropersialist.
Correspondence of The Cecil Wing
A PR0N.BlTORY LAW.
BALrIaoRE, Jan. %, SO.

from The city for some weeks ana could not
be falni liar with the affairs gong on IN your
county. 1t seems that some one signing
himself "Tho,nas Millin" wrote letter to
you on the 9th Of this month crticisinS that
portion 0 my last letter 10 The hh's where
in referred to Temperance here IN baltl-
more. and gave ii as my OPINION that the
Prohibtory Law would be inadequate to the
work which its friends designed It to per-
form. 1t was not my intention to get up
controversy on the subject. Bat since T.
NJ desires discussion whyif you Will spare
the room, and your readers tax their patience,
he shall be accommodated.
Z. NJ. seems entirely destitute Of that frank
manner Of reasoning which charactcriz"s
high toned DICTATOR. He has most ndustli-
ously tried to make inc appear absurd by my
own assertions. His warped and ungcncr
Gus remarks are owing to his want Of per-
cepiion, or, else they arise from stratagcin by
which he would have me misreprcscnted. 1t
is no mark of wisdom for any man to attempt
to twist out of shape what he breads to UNI
derstand.
But l must proceed to the review Ct his
attempted hurlcsquc and sec, il can, if there
is ought in his epistle save far-fetchcd sub
terfuge. Notice his beginning, reader; and
do so particularly. He can presume any way
he pleases. lie remarks that whilst | am
skeptcal as to the efficiency of the law at
the same time declare my opposition to in
temperance, Where in my letter does he
find me declaring myself against incmper-
ance | said that to nc there was but little
to hope for in Prohib:tory Law. Here his
understanding seems to serve him well; he
even understood what l did not say. But
the phraseology used left the inference to
be drawn that | was so opposed, and he
rightly accepted my meaning. Hence IN
fer that on two subsequent points upon
which he attempts to cavil he Intentionally
misaccepts what meant. I'll come to them
shortly. In the very next sentence he tells
us that my views about the use of liquor in
fashionable circles are in accordance with his.
But before he closes his cpistle he swims the
river and entirely repudiatcs what he before
admitted. lie asks me how would make
the law but by the consent of the sovcreign's
will and puts this question as puzzle, for
which those who have read both letters will
give him but little credit.
How docs he think expected the law Is
be made but by the chosen agents of the poo
pie? Docs he conclude forcsaw and pre-
lictcd an epoch that would be brought about
by a Temperance Dynasty with him as its
leader! Or did he presume l was totally
ignorant Of the workings of our government
Just here charge him with purposely mis-
understanding ne. The reader will see here
his gloss attempt to make me appear con-
trade oy; though even this is unequal to his
subsequent ellrontcry. Now is it not most
plain that six tcnths Of the voters may cause
to be made Il Temperance Law so yepugno,tt
to the feelings of the minority that they will
refuse to obey it. And if large minority
disregard any law-paltculnrly if the mi
Mority include many influential persons it at
once goes into oblivion,-or, exists uninforc-
ed. The majority Of The soycr,ignS may say
what shall or shall not drink; but I, who
could belong to the minority, numbering
forty seven hundredths Of the entire number.
may feel that my personal rights and privi-
lcgcs are invaded and | will not concede to a
tyrannical measure.
Then if the majority say no man shall
keep a cask Of liquor in his own house for
his own use, the strong numerical minority
have right to appeal, even to resort to
arms against it, if they conscientiously think
themselves outraged by Il tyrannical oppres-
sion on the part of the movers of the law
Public opinion is law; it makes law; is the
quintcssence Of law. Then If obnoxious laws
arc enacted and the soyereigns strong will
equal to the orsinators or friends Of the law,
where is the power to enforce it! Where
did the warm temperance man obtain the in.
iluence and power to tmboldcn them to ohal.
enge the right of a man 10 drink rum ? Why
from the people, and whenever the people say
they want no more of the stimulus then their
servants may cut it off, and prohibit it from
the country. And whenever an overwhclm-
ing majority say stop its manufacture and
importation, provided the Appellate Court
will not gainsay it, why a remnant of the
opposers, or the small minority against its
exclusion may conccde to it. The power of
the Legislature to say it shall not be an arti.
Gle of merchandise is one thing, and the
same body to say it shall not be drunk is
another.
The tenor of my remarks went to show
that the Legislature might prevents its sale,
but they could not prevent men from loving
it, nor would it be likely to be discontinued
as beverage so long as society's trainers of
fashions continued to use it, unless they
stopped the making and importing of it;
which l agreed would be done when the
moral sentiment had reached climax of re.
form. Thirty years ago he would not have
dared to agtate what he now so boldly talks
about. But the sovcreigns will has under
gone o change; and by the present tide of