The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1873-05-16
THE LlsENsE QUESTION.
Sermon Preached by Rev. G. 7. Melvin,
at the Congregational Church, En-
pOria, on Sabbath, Nay 10th.

~ NHC law
We live in progressive age !;
we boast of our high civilization !;
we claim the very best share for the
land of our nativity. Our place in
that land is where enterprise has
pushed its sturdiest foot toward the
frontier. In the city we have made
our home we claim as high an APP
probation of social excellence, NOR
al worth, advanced ideas, all that
makes up high and noble character,
as anywhere on the continent. How
quick we would resent the insinua-
ton that we are behind the age, not
up to the times. And yet it is a
fact that In this nineteenth century
this free America--this city of
EmpOria, we have, in one respect,
actually advanced, just as far
as, and no farther, than one of the
most despotic of the heather ma
tions, near four thousand years
age. 1t was a gala day in Persia.
Riot in the palace and drunkenness
throughout the city was the shame
full record. King, noble, peasant and
slave gave themselves to the widest
excuses, and the sacred narrator
gives in terse language the true sig
niflcaAce of the license. when he says,
''the drinking was according to the
law" That law covered in its range
and effects a single week. The or
dinance enacted ia the city of EN-
poria proposes to establish intoxi-
cation on a legal basis for the year
to come. This, then, is the pro.
gress of four centuries. The law
of Ahasuerus was for one week ours
for one year. Is it not worth while
to live in an age of such advance
ment? Is it not striking proof OF
the glorio us march of events. TIC
seize upon the temporary permission
of an eastern despot and engraft it al
a permanent policy on our tree in
situations? Let us candidly exam
inc the facts and ask ourselves il
this is so. For such a purpose
have chosen my theme to-day. II
has been publicly stated that half the
clergymen in the city are at present
in favor of the license system. Thai
you may know on which side &c
count me i ask you to note what
have to say.
We have a State law which
permits the traffic in Intoxicating
drinks If the communities where j
is proposed consent. We live in {
city where a law has been enacted
to furnish this consent on certain
conditions Vendors OF arden
spirits will then hold their commits
sion to pursue their trade from thos'
in authority, thus holding their war
rant in the ostensible consent of thu
people. Should this be done what
ever intemperance occurs has thu
triple sanction, first of the State
then of the magistrates, then of tn,
people. Is it not a mild way o
putting it7 THE drinking will bt
according to the law"
Concisely stated my subject is
1.-THE, hurtful fruits of legalizing in
temperance. am enough of Ro
man Catholic to believe this a worl
of superogation did mot know thai
men often stifle conscience and blint
reason, impelIed by motives of pol.
icy or prejudice Alas, for our hu
manity, that in this nineteenth cen
fury, these United States, this city
of Emporis, this Christian pulpit, i
should be needful for a man ordain
ed to preach the gospel, to stand VI
and seriously undertake to persuade
men that TO legalize intemperance i
hurtful d only a hurtful thing
But so it is, and must go about tn
task quelling the bushes of ingenu
GUS shame as best l may.
L. To legalize intemperance give
a sanction of authority to crime.
You cannot give the sanction
of q community to crime, with
out subvertIng from its foun.
dation every God-given principl,
of morals. To do this in the in
terests of morality is as much a self
contradiction as to say that wrons
is right. 1t as much reverses tn
instincts of conscience planted il
our souls as the swing of the leve
of the locomotive engine reversel
its course on the track. l doubt i
any one present has the hardihooC
to deny that intemperance is {
crime. The statute whose aid il
invoked to legalize the traffic i'm.
plies that it 10 crime. prohibits
altogether, except positive license
be granted. The claims of the friends
of license that by their way we ge
the most restriction, implies it. II
it may be prohibited, if it should
be restricted, it must be something
that Injuries society, INVOLVES guilt
brings woe. To suppress or restrict
an innocent thing is senseless tyrany.
But if drinking be: crime by one
whose fevered blood inspires the
half craZed man to drain the cup,
what must we say of that deed,
which has its birth in the greed
a we'll poised brain, which
holds out the weapon by which
TO commit the crime. In COM
mon law, to hand the pistol to
the assassin in knowledge of his
purpose, is to be an accomplice in
the crime of murder. In society,
he who procures, is consigned to a
darker deep than he who commits,
impurity. Any act of off cial power
which allows q man to work with
impunity in defiance of any lawful
effort at repression, sanctions that
work. Is that work a crime? Then
officially that crime is sanctioned.
Here is the reasoning. Intemper-
ance snd its procurance are alike
crime-the legal power sanctions
the traffic that procures it, therefore
the legal power sanctions a crime.
There is no clearer Inference in all
the domain of logic. This, then, is
all you need to see that the hurtful-
ness of legalizing intemperance may
be established. What gloomier cpl
taph could you have on your grave
than this: "He sanctioned crime"
What handwriting on the walls of