The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1867-03-25
To Mr.. M. l.. Stevens.

SIR:-Allow me to congratulate you. You
are beginning to approach the subject. But
why persist in saying that am against tenn.
perance, when you know I am not? for YOU
have made me your witness, and you are bound
py my answer And why charge me with
pefsonasatys' Have you ever heard Of the
practlce among pick-pockets, of crying stop
M'J wien they are caught in the fact and
pursued? And now for my answers to your
second batch of questions. H
L. And SO, because rum sellers happen to
agree with st. Paul, you would denounce st.
raul himself as a runtnly? Total abstinence is
one thing-temperGnce another. go for tenn
perance, and so did he. On the whole, there
lore, prefer his authority to yours.
2. By "dranking," people of common sense
understand habitual drinking. When would
discountenance habitual drinking, and espe-
cially rum-drinking, while 1 would encourage
the use of an occasional glass of wine-sound,
safe wine, and even of whiskey or brandy, if
pure--as many of our best physicians dol
am not young enough to see the in consistency
you complain of-do you?
3.'But why lug that young woman in, by the
head and shoulders? What have we to
do with her? Have ever denied the evils of
intemperance? Do 1 not acknowledge the
curse? But drugged liquors beget an unnat-
ural thirst, and as they are to be had in l.un-
dreds of places,-uniilspected -,tnlicensed-I
would have inspection and heavy penalties.
and make it the interest of licensed dealers to
watch the rum-holes of the city where such
liquors are sold without license.
4. Who ever pretended that 1egalzing a
crime rendered it unpopular That licensing
liquor shops, gambling houses and other estab-
lishments, by diminishing their number, tends
to make them less popular, believe, and SO
must you, if you consider the question, though
the word itself is untitled for controversy like
ours, being equivocal.
8. A stringent, judicious license law would
secure better liquor" by engaging more re-
spectacle class Of dealers, and by making it
their interest to sell sound liquors; while the
interest of the lower grog shops would always
be in favor of drugged and cheap liquors. If
they were called upon to pay $500 or $1,000 for
license, and give sureties for their good be-
havior, with a certainty that spurious liquors
would be confiscated and emptie into the gut
ter, and that they themselves would be fined or
imprisoned and have their licenses withdrawn,
is il conceivable that they would run such a
risk? Heretofore licenses have been the mer-
est mockery-the fee not being sufficient to Sc
cure the monopoly desire. To another ques-
ton here involved, 1 answer that while monop-
lies in general-restricted monopolies-are not
celebrated for the excellence of their wares, -
1 hold that such a monopoly as contend for,
Al A.
untrustworthy and irresponsible, and giving it
into the hands Of few trustworthy and re-
sponsible persons, would make it the interest
of those few to furnish sound and safe liquors,
or their business would not pay. s..., D.,
6. A licensed rum seller, selling sound
and safe liquors, would certainly not prey up
on society" like the rum seller who furnishes
drugged and poisonous liquors. q e-...-.
z. Here is a petitio principle hardly pardon
able in Uery young mana begging of the
whole question. You assume not only that
rumsellers are murderers, which is one of the
things complain of, but that there is no dif-
erence between the man who sells poisonous
liquors and tina who ~vifs sound liquors
for medicinal purpose; and that, therefore, ye~-
liquor Agent is murderer. aa. ...g....
8. If "liquor-selling and brothel-keeping" be
licensed, there will be less of both-and con-
sequently less of temptation both for the
young and old. ..-- ;.,v....... ...
And now having answered all your ques-
tions, allow me to ask if you are aware that
liquor selling, brothel keeping and gambling
are all under prohibition now And yet,
drunkenness gambling and RIGHTEOUSNESS pre-
vail, as thew never did before Would that
your eyes were opened! JOHN NEAL.