, 1874-12-07

Lay on your penalties for voxatioas ap.
poala without fear, and, with the Legislative
assistance which We havo pointed out aud |
plenty Of nerve on your own part, yon will |
do much good and bo happy.
MORE WORDS WITH i PRoH1B1r1oN1sT.
We have received a second and lengthy |
communication from Mr.. ]. W. Hanson rola~
tive to the question "Doos Prohibition Pro-
hibit ?" and In answer to 4 recent oditorin1 In
THE TRIBUNE touching upon his first COLL
munication.
Tho first letter of Mr.. H. WINS In search Of n
controversy. Ho male his points, artfully, as
he supposed, but sophisticaly, MS waB shown.
The matter should thon havo rested as be-
tween him mud TIE TRIBUNE as he Ind bis
sny and said his argument. Wo havo not
spnco for m amplihoation Of his second lot
ter, and will only extract 80 much Of it rs
presents new argument or roason for pro.
lihition.
h1r, Hanaon aays:
You proceed to Represent mo A. advocating laws pro
hibiting drinking Not at all. II 10 the aalo and uot
thu use that tho law 3tsetf With, and TINT
Prohibittonists would nhIbit. Men may drink beer,
cider, whisky, II thoy will but TO arrest tho mischief
wrought by tho bus!ucsst tho law 10 protect tho pub
lie, saya 1t shall not DO aold. In tho case Of diseased
meat, statute prohibits my one from outing but o
uny not Hc}l. He may eat ca1rion but tho law pro.
hibitH him to opon shop to sell IT, II you can proyo
that tatned meat has been tho favotio food Of cnsn
ribco aud nations, "a IL Of Homo, to-day you
esn tranagressor II you rena the artclo III decent
colnmuntty-an article whose evil enects nothing
compared with thoao Of liquor.
We are glad that TuE Tn1DuNE's position
on Prohibition has elicitod one positivc state
ment from the Prohibitioniats, mud VIC stick
n pin in it right here for future reference
"Men may drink beer, cider, whisky, if
they will" 1t is not the drinking, then, but
tho selling Of liquor that the Prohilitionists
are bent upon stopping, aud which they
claim they have tho right to stop. Now let
, us sec about the selling, No QUO but fauat-
ic will deny tlat wine, beer, cider, and othes
liquors are tho produce of tho enrth, adapted
to use by nuns. labor; TINT those products
havo their uso in satisfying certain wishes mud
nppettes Of men, md that this use Inns been
recognized from imnlemorial times; and TINT
the vast majority Of men uso them without
injuriug themselves or others, and
have natural right to these products,
which arc in fact their property. The
d1inker is the principal; the seller is
only his agcnt. II men did not drink
aud desire to DO supplied with liquor, there
would be no sellers. The liquor-seller is only
NIL agent who supplies tho consumer with
certain fluids which he wants. If anybody is
at fhuIt in tho promises, it is tho drinker, but
the Prolaibitiolist says he has the right to
drink. If, therefore, tho drinker has the
right to drink Or use this property a. he sees
fit, by what authority can the Prohibitionist
or Legislature shy to the agent, You shall
not sell 1nau property in which ho has a
| natural right7 But, says Mr.. Hanson, sin the
cnso Of diseased ncats no statute prohibits
| any one from cnting, but he may not sell.
| One may cat carrion, but the Inv forbias any
one to open shop to sell it." This is II
! shrowd attempt to escape by sophistry.
The Inv forbitls the salo Of diseased meat be-
cause it is m imposition and fraud upos,
the purchaser aud the public. The vendes
Of Giseasod ment 1efrauds his customer, cheats
and swina1es him, By pasaing oil m unsound
and worthless article for atgooa and Bound
one upon him. The man who buys his
liquor knows whnt he gets and gots what hi
pays for. II he pays a cl4eep price he gets
cheap article. Ii he pays largo priceho gcti
| vnluab}e article. Every rnnn who buyt
liquor knows what he is buying, and get.
what he considersa M equivalent for his money
The man who buys diseased ment does no
know what ho is buying, md is consequent,
1 11f.A Il rht s..a.. =.
henlth
The remainder Of hTr. Hanson's comnuni
cation is argued upon the basis TINT the us'
Of liquor must be forbidden becnaso it in
wolves danger to society and is adverse Il
the public we}fnre, and in the course Of 1t h
roturns to tho original proposition, Ms follows
agrco with you that men haye generally rcsorte'
to stinuanta, aud that the great ajorlty Of them le
l!eyo in drinking. They aeem 10 believe In man,
ttlnga that wrong npd wicked, but haye not ob
served that TIE TRIBUNE advocates lceuslng them t
follow tho bent Of tbetr inclination.
It would bo useless to argue this point owe
again. We hayo once exposed its fallacy
and that fallacy is, that men believe in drink
ing because they do not know, feel, or bc]iov
that drinking is wrong, or wicked, or crjmi
nal, and therefore do not know, feel, or be
1icvo that they should be restricted from o
punished for drinking, or that their agent
should be restricted from or punished 70
sailing to them liquor. The additional poin
mado by slr. Hanson is, that the use Of al
dent spirits is avsrse to the public welfare
therefore it must bo stopped.
This Insertion will not stand analysis. Til
"publio welfare is not put in issue by rea
son Of one person in hundred drinking t.
oxcess and becoming intoxicated There
not natural right that mon possess wlic
might not be taken away from them upo
the ground that they should surrender thci
!, rights because certain individuals abuse
, tlom aud perverted them to bad purpose
: and hence the "publio welfare required til
ninoty.nino to be deprived Of the use Of
thing which did not injure them or ca,1s
them to inture others, lest the hundredt
man should abuse his privilege and do ov
to himself and others. 4 conclusion OF TIL
kind, drawn from such premises, is called