The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1874-06-02
The License Question.

has overlooked the fact that man may
argue the negative side of PROPOSE
ton, and still not necessarily commit
himself to any theory aliirmatively at
ali; and ! think that the greater part of
his article may be answered by saving
that when take up my pen to oppose
"license," ] do not Commit myself to
prohibition nor any thing else; but to
just what | say in the discussion. The
negative only opposes, while the affir-
native must prove; and our position
being necessarily negative on this ques-
uon, we cannot logically be held to the
very illogical conclusion of "The Other
Side" viz: That we "muSt necessarily
advocate system that admits Of more
Or less of the liquor traffic." and it
makes no difference to him whether
am prohibitionist or not; for we only
have to do with the license question in
this discussion. But still he insists
that .,wc are arguing in this discussion
for system that does not prohibit all
liquor traffic., We are arguing FOR no
system only we are arguing against H.
cense; that's all, Brother "Other Side"
Please remember this, and we will re-
lieve the readers Of the SPIRIT from
reading so much matter not pertaining
to the question.
There are some things we do know;
we know that Ohio has liquor law, and
know that the people are beginning to
enforce 1t and that in many instances
it is doing good work; and we know
that there is growing sentiment in "a
vor of temperance, and we do know
that Tor think we do if that is too dog
matical in consequence of all this the
hquor traffic is seeking protection from
its opposers through license, and fur
ther, we believe that license if adopt
ed, will be constrained to be so far an
interpretations Of public opinion in ia
vor Of the continuance of the traffic, as
to be the means of breaking down, in
effect, our present liquor law; so much
then for "what We know and don't
know" .
"a licensed saloon becomes an insti.
tuition of the State" The Other Side"
says he don't know what it means
Well will tel him what I mean by it.
l mean that the saloon keeper goes be-
hind his counter and mixes .'toddies,"
and "brews punches" by and with the
authority of the State; and any inter
ference with such privilege is met with
the power of the commonwealth, and
more, that the evils Of such course
are chargeable to the State, 10 matter
what the evil resulting therefrom may
be. II it is creating an appetite to ruin
noble. young man-if it is making
men drunk, and murder is- the result, if
it is there that. the robber obtains that
which is in nearly every instance, nee.
essary to stimulate him to his midnight
crimes, if it is there that the poor la
borer spends his money for drinks,
while his family are starving and pun
ishing for want: Then in this case the
crime is to be charged to the State, and
who will say it is not SOP
But "The Other Side'' seems to see
some lofty "Aights of rhetoric" Well,
| did not think l had assembled very
high up in the rhetorical regions, but
presume he thinks that's the easiest
way to dispose of the stuff, aud yet l
see that again his s'sensibilities. are har.
rowed up" Just what l wanted to do
for once then, l have accomplished my
object since this discussion commenced
But to bis'"sober reflections" "a little
affair that men have been familiar with
so long, is eitp He seems to think
that a fine assessed and collected fol
assault and battery" DC, is parallel to
that of license money placed in the
public Golfers, and even e"more repre-
hensible" in the one case than in the
other. This is some more of his i'm
proved logic i suppose; I wonder i
1.-The Other Side" can not see the differ
ence between taking money as part O
the penalty for the commission of al
evil forbidden, and the taking money
and granting therefor, license to do thu
evil, or, which is equal to the same
granting license to do that from which
nothing but evil can come
/. Let him look at this. The State says
to her subjects you must not strike
Iyour ,neighbor John Jenkins strikes
his neighbor, is arrested for assault and
battery, and the State puts the $50 fine
into the treasury. Is there no differ
ence between that and the following
The State says to her subjects give
me $50 and you may 60 and strike your
neighbor. j. j. pays his money, ani
by authority of the State goes and
strikes his neighbor. Now it does seen
to me that the logic of The Othe,
Side" would say that the difference. i
any, is in favor of the latter, and
would ask .The OTHER Side" whether
this is not about the fact in the licerst
question Does not the State by Ii
cense say to the saloon keeper pay mi
l-dollars and 60 and do that which
every body knows soiu and must resul
in evil to your neighbors, well knowing
also, that no good can be the result,ant
l will stand OF your back anG protec
you with the powers Of the Statep
4 One more quotation and comment
and will close this paper. NV brothe
says "and (worse and worse!) when
liquor seller is fined for violating tn
law, the price of murder, robbery, thief
&c, goes into the treasury" Now W
have both said it. let US stick to it, bu
now the difference between taking tn
money for license to do such thing
and taking the money as penalty 70
doing them, is what wish him to loo
at.
Il am diverted at my friends attemr
TO amend my logic. but don't think
have learned much logic from hi
amendment. But / must say that h
has remarkable ability for misconstru
ing arguments, and doing it in such
way that one can scarcely suspect hir
of any intention of doing so.
hope he will now be able TO under
stand my position on the license ques
ton and so give US some arguments o
..the other side" for think the reader
of the esprit must be getting anxiou
to get the arguments and not hear S
much "spatting at each other"
h julius.
--------+- - . +------------------