The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1867-05-16
Terms Eight Dollars per anna,,,a. j,, ,,d,.,,,o,
Gov. Andrew aud hi,Ceu.or.

TO the Editor Of the Press:
Under this heading with brief editorial in
PRODUCTION, we notice in the Press letter from,
Rev James Freeman Clarke to the editor of
the Zion's Herald, in which referring to Gev
Andrews argument against Prohibition, he
says, Il regard its spirit and tone as excellent.
its range as comprehensive and Mor0ugh. and
his motive as quite as pure as that of his opro-
nents" AS deep interest is felt in the tenn
perance question at the present time viii YOU
please give an insertion to the following article
winch we clip from the ". Y Iadependent. and
whieh we think viii enable your readers TO
oe''er understand and appreciate the compre-
nohsSe ana thorough range OF Gov. Andrews
argument.
A MORAL DILEMMA -Fonhlano, ,o,,..,
tne quarIei Detween the English CatboIicS'anJ
Puseyiles 10 the case of certain innLaas,n.
VINO coihplained that, after he had hesp az
work several days brewing port win ~ g Seen at
eral election, corrupter had presentaJ - esn-
dependent voters with genuine cask 10 49,,
beasts of them.
This chaos af complaint is really a good A.,
like the argument of ex-Gov. Andrew. in RosI
ton against the prohibitOry law Even tbosa
who agree with his conclusion must grow a liz
tie bewildered over the two opposing routes nv
which it is reached For instance, he proves
that the use of liquor Is no bad thing; and then
that the prohibitory law must be very bad
thing, because it really multiplies such use
Moreover, he shows that no law has any effect
whatever upon the drinking usages OF society;
and yet that this law has an exceedingly bad
effect. He demonstrates that the law actually
increases temptation by putt ns it out of sight;
and then argues that It is no bad thing to be
tempted. He brings witnesses to show that
the whole community is being demoralized by
drink; and then labOrs to show that drink pro-
duces neither pauperism nor crime. At one
point he objects to the law because to stop the
sale OF liquor is to invade private rights; and at
another point he condemns it because il in
creases the sale, and thus does public WRONG
Physiologically, he thinks drinking does coed:
but morally, how very bad that people should
be led to drinking by the pleasure OF breaking
the law! Alcohol, he thinks, is food; but the
prohibitory law tends to provide such food lib
orally, and is therefore to he condemned.
ltwould do discredit to Gov. Andrews
head tosuppose that he has blundered into this
series OF moral dilemmas The trouble is that,
he is serving two masters. One-half of those
who oppose the prohibitory law are deluded
temperance men, who thinks it effects too lit
tie. The other half and much the most
Jealous, are those pubhcans and sinners who
secretly know that it effects great deal too
much. These forces are the two halves OF a
pair of sharp scissors, moving opposite ways
for a common end and if Gov. Andrews cuts
his fingers badly i'll acting the part of rivet, it
is no fault OF ours.
One thing is certain. Under whatever flag
the liquor dealears fight, the mass of sober
men Will rally to the opposing flag. The
long war with slavery has taught us at least
this lesson, to observe whore the enemy stands
and take our stand opposite. For want of this
knowledge the Wing and Democratic parties
went down carrying great many ex-govern-
ors with them. Protesting to fight for liberty
under the lead of Shareholders, they found the,
moral dilemma too much for them. Whose
ever tries to fight for temperance under the
liquor-dealers will do no better. .t
If we may believe Gov. Andrews Witnesses
Boston is deluged with liquor, the result of the
prohibitory law. Ii we may believe his friends,
the liquor dealers, they must soon give UP bus
mess, under the law, and Gas they naturally in
fer) the trade of Boston will be ruined Both
assertions cannot be true. Either annihilates
the other. For ourselves, we believe that the
children of this world are wiser in their gem
Grafton than the children OF light; and that
Gov. Andrews clients know their own business
better than his clergymen.
AS we take it, u little straightforward hypoc-
| risy (if we may say SOY would have done the
| business better. Gov. Andrew should have
| dropped either the end of his argument or its
| beginning. He should have said, Liquor is a
| good thing, in moderation; therefore let us re-
move the prohibition, which is running Its
| SALE Or lie should have said, Liquor is q
bad thing; therefore let us remove the prohi-
bition, which is promoting its sale" he should
have kept oil the witness-stand either his al
| coholic psychologists or his temperance philan-
thropists. Then he might possibly have come
into port ON the one tack or the other. Now
| he has missed stays" and is drifting on the
4 rocks -...".a