Litchfield enquirer., 1870-03-03
L1rcHrrrrLD.F Feb. 28. 1870.

all must agree with you, that our prohibit tory law was killed by the hypocrisy of those who advocated it for the sake of pop ularity or for political reasons. It was ev- ] idently ahead of the morality of the pub iic. and many were trying to enforce an abstinence on others which they did not themselves practice.
 But in your classification, which you &C., Knowledge imperfect, do not see where you draw the lines between the classes; ror do see the different degrees of crimi- nality as you do. All stand on level, except the druggist, whose business, the dealing in all kinds of medicines inclu- ding alcohol, is honorable and necessary when confined to their proper use, but whose criminality, when, under the name of druggist, he establishes either high or low groggery, I consider of a deeper dye, inasmuch as he sins against greater light and knowledge. hope that none of that class exist with us
 You properly remark that the poor man has the same right to his indulgence as the rich, if he can afford it. This he may be enabled to do, if you allow the low groggery to sell strychnine whiskey, which he can afford at ten cents or less, a drink, or cider Kept sweet by receipt hesitate to give for fear of it's too general use lone of it's ingredients being rum-in the pro- portion of three or four gallons to the bar reD which my informant says is very pala- table, and can be afforded at five cents per glass. Now if such places were suppress l ed, could the poor man afford, like the rich, equally poisonous brandy at 25 cents to 50 cents per drink, or champaign at $4 per bottle? Would you not be guilty of "denying him the only semblance of lux ury except tobacco he knows?" am glad of the disposition to renew the Tempe rance effort in your, or mine, or any other way, forbiddingno one. The field is large ! enough for all When the disciples found one casting out devils in way not apostol- ical, and forbade him, our Lord rebuked their want of charity, Forbid him not, for he that is not against us is for us" In accordance with this view, I would favor your plan of allowing each town or voting district to regulate in it's own way the liquor traffic, hoping that whatever classi- fication might be adopted, it might be one not open to the objection of allowing the rich privileges not allowed the poor or middle class, as that would not only be un i just but unpopular and odious to those of us who are, and always will be, the majority of voters.
 I have faith to believe that in some way the country, and then the city, will attain to real prohibition. It does not now ap- pear how that can be accomplished. Nei. ther did it seem possible in 1860 that in l ten years slavery would be abolished, 8 constitutional amendment passed putting an end to all legal distinctions of race, and negroes elected chief justices, of South oru 5tares and U. 5. senators. With such an experence in the past, may not tempe rance men hope that another ten years will I see Prohibition the enforced law of the land, even though Sixteenth Amendment should be nece ssary to accomplish it?
 We oftea enter upon project hot head ed and fanatical Cfanaticisns is cry, by the way, that has been raised with more or less effect against every reform). Then we cool down altogether, become self-in- dulgent and conservative, and need to have the great principle, and the right and wrong of the matter set before us. hope to hear more from yourself and other friends of the cause, trusting that the right way will be indicated to us, and that, with the ruinous effects of this terrible evil con. stantly before us, we may be able to con. trive som effective mode of stopping it's progress. X.
 "X." suggests very shrewd objectio n to our classification of the liquor-vending fraternity. It is unquestionably true that any restriction of the liquor traffic tends to increase the price of indulgence, and to make distinction against the poor. Such is the indirect effect of the revenue law, and such will be the effect of any ''license" scheme. But are we to refrain from tax ing luxuries because it makes them dear? Are we to lay no restriction on danger ous indulgence because the cost of that in. diligence is thereby increased? That would seem to us hyper-critical.
 We did not imagine that we had suc- ceeded in making any such classification of the grades of criminality that apper- tain to the liquor traffic as would be ne- cessary in framing statute, or town by law, but we do believe that any classified tion is better than no classification. ''X" must remember that we do not undertake to say what ought to be, but what is. While total abstinence shouli be our ultima te aim, We must remember that it is not yet the general practice. Legislation can safely go much in advance of public opin- ion in the granting of rights. never iu the