Litchfield enquirer., 1874-01-08
License vs. Prohibition.

subject at the Methodist church, in this place, and we notice that the Rev. MT. Winter was at Winsted, last week, speak l ing upon the same theme. The Prohibi- tion party has called State convention for the nomination of a separate ticket and the temperance issue will no doubt be q feature in next springs campaign
 Mir. Littiewood advanced the usual argu- ments of the Prohibitionists, in temper ate and able discouse; and, while we differ with him in toto as regards the political questions connected with total abstinence. we agree entirely with his views of the great moral question at the root of the matter. Our grounds of difference re- garding prohibition we will state as brief ly as possible:
 Therais fundamental misaprehension on the part of the prohibitionists regard ing the real issue between license and prohibition. They always assume that the passage of prohibitory law, will of itself work a restriction of liquor selling, whereas our license law permits it. Such is not the fact. The real issue is between the partial restriction of that law and the''free rum that was the practical result of the old Statute. Mir. Littlewood frank ly stated that he did not expect an imme- diate enforcement of a prohibitory law, even if it was passed, but thought that in few years it would grow into favor and gradual enforcement. Why does MT. LittIewood expect this? :? In 1854. the original prohibitory law was passed in Connecticut. It was enforced for few months and then for eighteen years, till its repeal, it remained dead letter on the Statute book. It was, indeed, enforced in few isolated localities where the total abstinence sentiment was very strong, and the population sparse and agricultu- ral It will be observed, however, that our present law, though allowing license, IS more properly what is termed Local Op- ton than License law. It allows local ities where the total abstinence sentiment prevails, to vote entire prohibition. In places where the total abstinence senti- ment is weak, it not only requires an hundred dollar license of the seller, but also requires a thousand dollar bond upon which that seller becomes lia- ble for the damage resulting from any sale to drunkards. To this feature we were surprised to see that MT. Littlewood made no reference. Nor did he seem at all aware of another provision of the ex- isting law which subjects the licensed
 dealer to punishment and revocation of license for sales to drunkards. Hence all the eloquence of the speaker about the enormity of allowing sales to persons of uncontrolled appetite was misdirected, and inapplicable to the existing statute. Nor did the speaker refer to that most i'm portant section of the new law making reputation" of liquor selling ground of conviction, under which section, during the single year of it's existence, more liquor dealers have been convicted before the Litchfeld county juries than during the entire eighteen years of prohibition.
 The simple truth is that the ground for Prohibition has not been, as yet, laid by general habits of total abstinence We cannot pretend to offer any reliable esti- mate of the number of Connecticut voters xuhn opo fnto1 o1> hut estimate them at anything like majority. The regular temperance vote is less than three per cent of the total. vote cast. We judge that there are not 5000 voters who are members of any of our temperance or ganizations, and we should guess that the whole number of total abstinent voters could not possibly exceed 10000. Now prohibitory statute is founded on the prin- ciple of total abstinence, and cannot be enforced in any community where a ma jority of the voters are even occasional drinkers. It is because of the hypocrisy involved in passing law founded on Q principle which the great majority are de- termined not to live up to practically, that Prohibition is failure. In some agricultural communities in this State total abstinence is generally practiced, and in such communities prohibitory stat utes are enforced.
 Now we look upon the present law as compromise between us of the abstinent minority, and the great non-abstinent ma jority, giving us all we can in reason re- quire. The majority concede us: 1st, the right of enforcing entire prohibition in all localities where we are strong enough to enforce it; 2d, they lay Q heavy tax on all sales, and prohibit sales to drunkards and minors; Sd, they make dealers give bond to make good such damage as results from their sales; 4th, they provide in the reputation" section new and most effec- tive protection against unlawful sales. In addition to these concessions they give up that quiet opposition to the punish ment of liquor selling which made jury trials farce under the old law.
 In short we do not believe that minor ity who abstain from drinking liquor can compel majority to abstain, also, by any legal device whatsoever. What we d need is more thorough and earnest work for the conversion of the majority to the views and practice of the minority; and till our mi nority becomes majority, legal pr6hibi- tion will always prove failure
 The Washington Lecture.
 Dr. Hollands lecture on Friday even- ing was great success-a full and happy house-a noble discourse, Tn which thought, style and delivery were harmo- niously perfect. But as the Editor was