The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1874-06-16
The License Question.

The License Question.
! Written for The Spirit Of Denaooracy.J[
The Other side."
ED. SPIRIT: Are you not mistaken,
my brother, when you say that ! as,
-sume that you shall contine yourself to
!, defending the license system by proving
that it is unobiectionable That in try,
| ing to show that it may be less objec-
tlonable than other systems, you are
going outside of the discussion? When
did l say anything like il? ? or when did
say anything from which you could
infer that assumed anything of the
kindI have on the contrary repeated.
~ asked you to give us some argument
in favor of license. l have said that
was very anxious to know what could
tie said on that side, and ] have said
that we anti-license folks, were search
ing after the best, and most, effactual
way Of repressins the evils of intem
Iperance; thereby challenging compari
son with any other system, or if neces.
sary, with all other systems; and yet
the impression you seem to try to make
is, that l object to license because it is
not absolutely perfect
1t does seem to ne that you have
built up man of straw, of quite large
dimensions, just for the purpose Of bav
ing the privilege of beating him to
death for the fun of it Our readers
will judge for themselves whether this
represents me fairly or not.
How can "On to Richmond" when
| am compelled to halt at every step to
clear away the great piles Of straw
thrown i'll my way which seem to have
fno other object than to mis.represent
my position and mistify the subject gen.
erally2
But see you are after me again with
a sharp stick on the begging siie of the
question; san artful bit Of strategy on
my part. "It relieves me of the task
of making comparisons" Now l should
like to know what you have made of the
license system with which l can com.
pare anything; l have been waiting all
this time to see the license system SCI
up in all its excellence, by your side, in
order that might make comparisons
How can l make comparisons with
straw men? l am not trying to con-
ceal my ultimate design as you intimate
but only trying to get logical discus
sion of the license question. I insist
that the negative is only bound to deal
with the argument of the affirmative
all your talk about mo system amounts
to nothing, until you as the affirmative
build up system and show up its good
qualities; and if the negative should
even then succeed in tearing it down
without even attempting to build up an.
other, you caunot complain, but must
submit to your fate.
Now in order that we may "On to
Richmond" l will pay some attention
to your first effort to build up the IL
cense system. You quote Macauley
l endorse him as quoted, and make an
other quotation which, I think, agrees
with him; and will no doubt add mucl
force to his sentiment; it is from tht
94th Psalm-David is the author; hi
says addressing his maker: "Shall thu
throne of iniquity have fellowship will
thee, which framcth mischief By laso?'
Now / think that, that government viii
attempt too much that frameth mischie
by law, and think that the adoption O
license is framing mischief by law, ant
that too, at the awful risk of loosinl
our fellowship with the author of oul
being. We are not prepared for tina
yet.
Perhaps temperance men have mad'
many mistakes in dealing with the liq
uor traffic, I do not doubt it; but other
uiso make mistakes. do not exactl,
! know now we arc to ascertain lust wha
public opinion is; but would 1t not b
we'll for US to try to create public sen
timent in favor of the execution of GU
present law, rather than to try by con
stitutional enactment to create publ
opinion in favor of the legalization an
perpetuation of the trafflcp
You say "many license advocates be
. lieve that by means of license the traffi
D will be within the control of men c
greater responsibility, and higher mora
i standing, who will from self respet
a and conscientious motives, preven
i many OF the evils now resulting fror
t the liquor traffic" would like to ur
derstand what you mean by "respons
+ bility ?" if you meaE men of NOR
:. means, then I object, from the fact tina
!, the more means the man may have, th
o more power to carry on the nefariou
e traffic; and the more it is placed in sue
Il hands therefore, the greater the evil
To talk of men of high moral stant
ing engaging in such traffic is curiou
language, to say the least of it, T
me it is a misnomer; / cannot conceiv
e Of such thing. Neither can I thin
:, there is much self respect, or yer
- many conscientious scraples, to /
y looked for from such quarter. Trul
it is wonder to me that you did NJ
v say christian men; why not 60 tt
y whole string, and even christening I'll
Z traffic at once ? and this is just what
. seems to me ought to be done befol
Il we would be justi6able in legalizing
= by license in the Constitution. To sa
y that by license we change the traffic
other hands-not to say better-d
- pends upon circumstances, and cond
:, tions, outside of any facts vet set fort
Ii on your side, and therefore the drivin
it into the hands of the 'lawless an
= degraded or vice versa, means nothin
a until we are made to see that such
). thing would be likely to be the resul
which think would not be.
le / don't know but l would agree
is vote for license if you will convin'
tie me that the liquor traffic will by tt
% adoption of license be placed in tt
If hands of good moral-not to say chri
=. tian-men, but that is just what l thir
E. would be very hard to do ii. e.. to fir
rs that-class of men, taking hold of it.
,r My motto you know is, the best way
g get rid of the terrible evils of inter
a, perance. But can not think that
1tI cense is the best. or any system I