The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1874-05-19
The License Question.
Written for The Spirit Of Democracy


ED. SPIRIT: had just taken up my
pencil to reply to "B G." when my eye
caught your very timely and prutehtisl
hint to those engaged id the discussion
Of the license question, 10 mot occupy
too much space in spatling at each
other Were writing for display, or
to make myself conspicuous, ! would
like to put column OF two in.vour next
in reply to "B G." bit wishing only to
engage in a candid, and profitable dis
clssion Of this subject, my friend must
excuse me from anything like q rel,ly
TO his very Illogical, and playful article.
When al. e. sees ft TO come ont and
take position on one side or the other
OF this discussion, then perhaps lie may
merit attention.
am glad that you published in your
last, the form in which The "license''
question is likely TO be put before the
people. 1t will help us to bring our ar
gnments on both sides, more directly
to bear upon the issue l have already
COMMITTED myself to the side of ''no Ii
e2nse," aud see no cause for modifying
anything | have sal in my communities
tons; notwithstanding the form of the
license clause seems likely to assume q
different wording than had supposed
it would, and notwithstanding the very
heavy missiles hurled at me ia santing
style by "B. G." But as my first has
not been sqHarcly attacked l will offer
few thoughts more OF this question.
because say that ''license is anil
temperance" docs not imply that
think all who contemplate voting for Ii ]
cense do it from "eyl designs" only
affirm that some of them do it for The
purpose OF keeping up the traffic and
breaking down all restriction, notwith-'
standing they may not reason right. and
may not accomplish their object, though
license shonld prevail
But "The Other Side" is out again in
his former style, and seems to have
dropped his former questions, and &C
cepts the fact that prohibition is not in
the question. l would however like to
relieve him of one trouble, in which he
seems to be found; he says, "that pro
hibitinn being banished from the dis
cussion, is not to be brought forward,
in case no license should prevail BIT
as the prohbiionis,s have not informed
me as to what shall be their course in
case '!icense'' or mo license" should
prevail. | can not help him in this; but
would only give as my opinion, judg-
ing from the past course Of prohibi-
tiouists, that they will go on in their
insignificant" way. irving to turn the
world upside down; but certainly they
can claim no positive guaranty in case
"no license" should prevail that total
prohibition will, per consequence, pre-
vail
But that from the fact that the "no
license organs disavow prohibitions"
land this, it will be remembered they
only do so far as this discussion is con.
ccrned.) therefore '.they must of ne
cessity favor a system which tolerates
more or less liquor traffic." does not
look to me to be good logic Let us
try to get sylogis'n out OF it and then
perhaps we can decide the matter
l. The no license organs disavow
prohibition in their discussion of the
license question. 2 Nothing short of
prohibition will avert all the evils OF
liquor selling g. Therefore the mo
license advocates are in favor of "a
system which tolclatcs more or less of
liquor traffic"
The fallacy will easily be seen to be
the fact that there is more contained in
The conclusion than in the premises, for
| it is not to be affirmed that the "no IL
cense organs dsavow prohibition" ex-
esps far tif ascSss2P Ss aaea il fai
men are frequently found (and' consis
tently too,) advocating systems that
they do not themselves endorse abso
lutely, but only advocate them because
they are opposed to some system that
they consider worse one. Just SO l
understand it is with some men who ad
vocae the Adair law in preference to
license, but it certainly would not be
right to say that they must endorse
that law absolutely, in all its paris, and
then that they are to be held RESPONSE
BILE for all the evils which that law fails
to reach; and yet this seems to be the
logic Of "rhe Other Side," in his Sec
ond. So l think. clearly, he is "wrong
again. the conclusion is a wrong one,
at least unwarranted from the premises.
License permits selling under GER
tain restrictions" and forbids all other
selling, (say may forbid, and l would
like it better) There is a statement |
Ike better still, license permits selling,
under what restrictions we don't know,
and forhids what kind of selling we
don't know. "No license" neither per-
mlts nor prohibits selling but leaves the
question open for legislation unframed
led ny Constitutional enactment
"Or to state the matter in a different
form" License" draws a circle but
no one can tell the bound thereof only
that 1t limits the power to leeislste
against the traffic mo license" does
not necessarily draw q circle, hut with
mo license we are left to the broad
expanse Of the law making Liberties of
the government, for our regulation of
the traffic
'ln the other, the law takes no notice
OF the man until he is caught trangress-
ing its pale Just what it ought to do,
and just what the law does do, in al.
most everything. The law says the
murderer, robber, and the thief, shall
be punished for the crime committed,
but never thinks of arresting him until
ne Is charged with crime. Why not
deal with the liquor traffic as you deal
with other evils? I here suggest a
query: Why do our law makers, ahd;I
others, favor the liquor traffic more
han other evils2 Why do we not deol
with those who violate the law in this
respect, as we do with others2
When we as a people grow to the
full stature of our manhood, and deal
with the liquor traffic, as we would with