The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1870-01-05
Tho DrunLsrd,. Carnival.


II is the general testimony Of our city
press that the ChristmAS holidays were this
year distinguished by extraordinary and eH-
oesAlye drinking, "NeW York was drunk
ysstetdAy" Is the rather strong expression Of
Quo OF them with reference TO New Years
but that the drinking OF that day was gen
srAl and immoderate, even for New York, Is
the concurrent assertion.
Dhbking was once all but uniyersali now
II 10 not. There IL very considerable
minority, even In this metropolis Of sensual
Ity, who systematically and on principle re-
Ject every Intoxicating beverage. These are
a hundred times more numerous than they
we're nfty years ago. But, apart from the
rigldly abstlnent, Il 10 our conviction that
there was more drinking and deeper drink.
ing hOre m the year 1859 than In any OF the
two hundred and sixty preceding years, since
HendTick Hudson discovered this Island.
The fearful consequences can here only be
glanced at. Destitution, squalor, Vice, prof
llgacy, robbery, murder-theso are more
prevalent In New York to-day than at any
former period. BeggAry and harlotry, crime
and lnfamy, crowd our Streets finding In
the RTog-shop their source and inspiration.
VERY rarely Il q novice drawn Into gaming
houhe or a den Of debauchery except when
under the influence Of liquor. II is our arm
conviction that, II alcoholic beverages could
be wholly and permanently banlshed from
our city, and all our police and machinery
OF criminal Justice went with them, there
would thsncefoTth be less crime and far less
MISERY In our city than there 10.
There 10 a very Considerable body Of re-
spectacle citlBens who cannot shut their
| ayes TO these horrors, yet who arc not con-
yerts tototAl abstlnence. They drink rarely
and cAutlously--at least, they think So-are
In no danger offalllng into drunkenness, and
do not feel constrained TO give up what they
deem an innocent and pleAsurable eIhilara-
| ton because others abuse liquor 10 their own
hurt and that Of their families. They are
not convinced that our way Of lighting what
they admit 10 DO great evil Is the right
way. We do not propose nj this time TO dis
cuGs our more palpable difference, but 10 ash
them whether they ought not u resist intem
| psTRnce In some way. Grant that our SaJ
Il wrong, how does that excuse your seelu'
log apathy, your practical indifference
Here are tens Of Thousands annually swep
on to ruin BY the use Of strong drink how
doos our error, II II be an error, excuse you
h0sdlesSnesSl Admit that, with Your con
Vlctlons, you cannot act with US who stant
for total abstinence, does that excuse yol
from acting at ALI
In Massachusetts and other states wher
prohibition has been strongly advocated
these modeTAtsB profess TO favor strngen
excise law, which they say would do NOR
for temperance than prohibition can, be
cause II can be enforced, while prohibitio
cannot be. Yet In this State, where no seri
Qua effort for prohibition has been put fort
for years, the moderateA raise no voice Il
: favor Of our mild and liberal excise law, bu
generally help elect Legislators pledged +
abolish all excise laws or render them 10
J operative. The Sunday Mercury demands
as one result Of our late Democratic triumph
that the sale Of liquor shall be made as ire
here as that OF sugar, beside having sunda
given over 10 II, as II 10 not 10 the sale {
sugar, aud this seems 10 be In accord Wit
the spirit now dominant, and certain to pr
vail IN fact n not In law.
Men Of convictions aud Of MORAL prlue
piles, who are not total absIainerS what
youT way Of REFRESHING eIcelS 10 drinking
Let your acts GnSwsrl- T. Tribune, h