Litchfield enquirer., 1874-01-22
License vs. Prohibition.

License vs. Prohibition.
 I observe in your issue of Thursday. Jan uaty sth, which I did not receive until il was too late for . reply last week, some strictures on my lecture on 'eLicense ys. Prohibition, |" which delivered short time ago in your place. Will you allow me space for very brief reply.
 In noticing the lecture, you are pleased to say, while we agree entirely with bis view of the great moral question at the root of the matter, we differ with him in toto as regards the practical questions connected with total abstinence. Our grounds of difference we will state." Sum- med up, they amount to this, we are not yet prepared for prohibitry law; ergo, the license law is better for us than'a prohibi- tary law. The first may be true. the sec- ond, we assert is false. ''The simple truth is" you say, 'that the ground for Prohibition has not as yet been laid by general habits of total abstinence. A pro- hibitory statute is founded on the prin- ciple of total abstinence, and cannot be enforced in any community where ma jority of the voters, are even occasi onal drinkers. You then go on to show how small vote is the regular Temperance vote, and proceed to say, ''It is because of the hypocrisy involved in passing a law founded on principle which the great majority are determined not to live up to practically, that prohibition is a failure Let us examine these state ments, successively. You say, 1st, that the ground for prohibition has not as yet been laid by general habits of total absti- nence." Must we wait until the principles of total abstinence are everywhere practi- cally exemplifed, before we ask for 8 prohibitory law? To seek it then will be to ask for that for which there is no need. We shall never have prohibitory law if we must abide our time like that for it. You say again. "a prohibitory statute is founded on the principle of total absti- nence." This is 8 mistake. If you had said rather, "is dependent for it's enforce ment on the prevalence of the principle of total abstinence" you would have been more correct. We contend, as We con- tended in our lecture, that "a prohibito- ry stntute is founded on the principles of righteousness; and that license is found ed on unrighteousness; hence the falsity of your assumption, that, "the license law is better for us than. 8 prohibitory law" |" No wrong can be transmitted into right. As to the rest of your statements, we look on them as savoring of the Hypothetical, rather than as being automatically true. It may or may not be that prohibitory statute cannot be enforced in any commu- nity where majority of the voters are even occasional drinkers. We believe there are many who occasionally drink, who. for the general good, would just as soon as not relinquish it, and go in for a Prohibitory, in preference to license law. It is simply the customs of society which bind them to the use of it. We be lieve too, there are many drunkards who would prefer to have prohibitory law, to a license law, and to have the prohibitory law in its utmost stringency enforced. It is not from this class of men, as a rule, that the opposition to it comes. So, too, it may or it may not be that prohibition is 6 failure because of the hypocrisy involv- ed in passing law founded on a princi- pie which the great majority are deter mined not to live up to practically. We do not like to suspect men of sinister mo- tives, unless we have some decided proof of it. We prefer, when we have no knowl- edge to the contrary, to consider men as be- ing honest and sincere in their desires for Prohibition when they give their votes for it. They may not have lived up to the principle of total abstinence, though they may have been prepared to do so at any time. They believe in prohibition. But they are time serving, somewhat; if others abstain, they can, and will abstain, but if others drink, they both can and will to some extent do the same. The po- sition may not be very honorable one, but it is one occupied by great many of the members of society, as we believe. So that all calculations, based on the arith- metic of voting, are to say the least of it, unreliable, if not unso,tad. You speak of the Temperance vote, as if that were the only vote to be cast on the side of pro- hibitory statute; whereas, we look upon it, as being only a fractional part of it. Back of that, lies the vote of the Christian, and a still larger vote perhaps, of the naor- al sentiment. Our Temperance societies by no means sum up the sentiment and feel ing of the different communities with re- gard to it. -.,-----
 In arguing for the license law, you say, NOW we look upon the present law as compromise between us of the the absti-
 nent minority, and the great non-absti- nent majority, giving us all we can in req son require" You go on to state the concessions they make. Without instancing them separately, for must be brief,-I ask, what do they all amount to,-G prac- tical nullity. They are concessions which it was we'll known at the time, might safe- ly be made A .fe,v, under that important section-making the ''reputatioa" of
 liquor selling ground of conviction, may have been convicted-but alas! alas! like angels visits, they are few and far be- tween. I simply ask, whether there is not in spite of these concessions, more oi rum selling, and more of drunkenness,
 more than there was year ago. The
 local option, the hundred dollars for li-
 cense, the thousand dollar bond. what do