New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1871-04-13
Another Reply to DR.. Sunderland ON the
Trafnc I'm IntOxica tfng Drinks
W WASHINGTON, April 4. ]

WASHINGTON, April A, 1871.
Mr.. EDITOR would not ask you to publish
any additional arguments in favor of nv posi-
ton on the subject of the traffic in intoxicating
drinks, were 1t not for the fact that Mr.. Sun
derland in his last article, published in the
New NATIONAL ERA, complained of me that l
did not quote him correctly or give his phrase
ology in the article which he published in the
Chronicle, and for another startling fact, that
Mr.. 8. in his last article referred to Christ in
his FIRST miracle in "Cana of Galee" as q man.
ufacturer of intoxicating wine or, if the Doctor
does not intend to teach this, then his reference
has no place or force in this discussion
i will now try and answer DR.. S. on the two
points referred to:
First. In regard to Misrepresentation, must
deny the charge, and publish again the Doctors
article which he published in the Chronicle.
and to which my article in the New NATIONAL
ERA was reply, that the lovers of truth may
know whether quoted him fairly or not:
THE TEMPERANCE QUESTION
To the Editor Of the Chronicle
MIR. Finney, writing fraternally and frankly,
says intoxicating drinks II thought he said
% intoxicating liquor" There is q difference
Does he accept the word liquor for drinks"
and attempt to prove that the making and
vending of intoxicating liquor is, per Sc, q
crimep
/ understand him to affirm it. What argu
ment does he put to proveit2 He enumerates
several major and minor crimes known to the
law, and then says :" the drinks - are the fathers
OF these crimes therefore, the making and
vending of these drinks 4" is a crime. If this
logic holds good, let us 90 back one step fur
ther and see where we are then. If there were
no drinks there would be no crime. So, if there
were no vineyards, no orchards, no grain fields.
there would DE no drink. 1t is, therefore, a
crime to have vineyards orchards. and grain
fields Are we prepared to saw that IF the
drink is the father of crime, a product of ma.
sure must be its grandfather Then, if one
progenitor be cruel, so is the other.
how shall we answer this /? AS to the arti-
Gle by Mr.. Peck, while / see how very kindly
he has treated my motives and myself, for which
! thank him, ! am sorry to say do not quite
catcn the DRIFT OF his remarks on the present
question. have not been accustomed in nv
own mind to classify prostitution and poIygamy
win the manufacture of an article Of com.
merce 30 largely used for medicinal and me-
ehsnlca purposes as alchoholic LIQUORS
Inc definition of crime quoted from Webster
1 accept, with single qualification: do not
oeiieve that everything is criminal which occa
sions crime. think some occasions of crime
are themselves criuinal, but believe there are
many innocent occasions Of crime, az when the
poverty OF woman inspires unlawful desires
and leads to unlawful acts in man.
And how are We to apply this definition to
the case In hand! Suppose the liquor made
and sold yet If it be not drank there will be no
aggravated offence against morality or the
public welfare'-there will be no " great wrong
or outrage anywhere as growing out of the
mere fact OF the existence of the liquor. Does
this not conclusively show that the existing
crime is in the drinking, not in the making and
vendng7
THE army Of drunkards" presents surely a
fearful spectacle, but am more inclined to say
that the business which makes them so 10 the
drinking business, rather than the making and
vending business. A man may entice others to
drink, aud then both seducer and seduced must
feei the curse that falls on the offender. This is
PLAINLY the meaning of the passages quoted by
Mr. Peek, and to which fully assent
But am reluctant to be drawn into any dis.
cussion with the friends of temperance.
should greatly regret anything that tends to
inJure the good cause We all wish to promote
am open TO con victon, and when see my Err
ror trust shall have the honesty TO confess It,
Very truly, &C., b. SuspERLAsD.
February 81, 1871.
Second. In regard to the position taken by
the Doctor, that Christs FIRST miracle was per.
formed to change pure water into Intoxicating
WINE, not for medicinal uses, but for beverage
On wedding occasion, / must be allowed to
en'er my most solemn protest against any such |
's'ss position, a. / believe it 70 be, even If IL |