The Weekly Kansas chief. [volume] (Troy, Kan.) 1872-1918, 1880-04-01
Sofal Skaters.
WHERE LIES THE BLAME,

There is difference of opinion in the minds Of some
as TO who is the responsible party for the evils
OF dram-drinking: the drnker the seller. To To-
cate all the blame just where it belongs that none
shal get either more or less than belongs to him,
Is no easy task Granting the liquOr trade to be a
righteous business, the same farming, mechanics,
merchandising, printing, then the question would
oe more simple. The responsibility would rest with
he buyer and not with the seller. In all legitimate
business the seller is in way responsible for the
use to which the buyer puts his purchased conmodi-
ties. For instance the merchant Smith, is not re-
sponsible because the blacksmith, Jones' kicked farm
er Browns youngest boy Jim with pair of stoga
boots bought from Smiths store. Whyi Because
selling boots is righteous business SO with liquor
selling. lift righteous calling the liquor dealer
not to be blamed for the incidental evil resulting
from his business But suppose that the liquor traffic
IL wrong business What then 1t would then
seem that the responsibility shifted in part from the
purchaser to the seller. II the business is wrong
then both seller and buyer involved in blame.
Both are participants in the unlawful transac
ton. So, if Intoxicating liquor is ''contrabaDd" of
trade-if the whole business is wrong-then, if the
liquor dealer, Smith, sells whiskey to the drunkard
Jones, by of which said Jones bruises his wife
and starycs his children, then the dealer, Smith,
must share in the blame for the brutality of Jones
So II all hinges on the right or wrong of the liquor
business, whether both of these parties
sponsible for the resulting evil of liquor drinking
The drinker is to blame in any event; the dealer is
Now, is the trade in liquor wrongi Right or wrong
it is not the level before the law, in pub
lie estimation, other callings its restrictions,
limitations and liabilities, under a license system
fully attest But TO determine whether it is right
or wrong, We have but to inquire what are its re-
sults-good or Ito society. If the outcoming
effects good, the whole the traffic is right and
should be sustained by law and public sentiment.
But if bad-injuriOus and demoralizing, in the main
then of course, the traffic is wrong, and the rum
dealer must share in the blame for the evil resulting
from his business.
But neither is the drnker or sellor of liquor alone
jointly responsible only for the existence of the
evils of drinking There is q responsibility back of
them BOTH greater than that of either. This RESPONSE
bity has two elements in in it. of which is public
sentiment and the other is public law Here lies the
principal blame. Though the saloon may not be the
creation of law and sentiment yet it is the prOtege-
the ward of them both. And am not sure but may
safely say that the saloon in important sense,
the creature of law And that law that gives legal
existence to the saloon, is itself the creature Of pub
lie NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. The laws of the land
but the acknowledgements of the pub
lie will Whatever evils public sentiment makes it
legal for to nfiict upon the community, the pub
lie share in the responsibility of the evils. For
instance if the public through the channels of legis
lation create sustain and protect theft robbery,
son, and murder, then must the public share in the
guilt of those crimes. And it may be said that in
the proportion in which the public responsibility for
evil increases, that Of the individual sinner dimn
ishes and this principle may be pushed so far, that
individual guilt may be in some instances entirely
absorbed by the general public.
What is public sentiment IL is simply the aggre-
te-totality-of individual sentiment. Hence every
individual who upholds the liquor interest, helps TO
make public sentiment, by which the evils of in
temperance are inflicted and perpetuated upon the
community And the only way in which person
be hOy relieved of responsibility for these evils
is to oppose the liquor traffic and seek its utter and
eternal overthrow. The only way TO touch and
change public sentiment, is by contact with, and
exchange of individual sentiment. So it belongs to
each individual to revise and reconstruct his own
opinions or at least hold them subject to such re-
vision and reconstruction, if he finds public opinion
wrong, and he drifting with the multitude in opinion
and sentiment. There is such thing a pnblic
conscience, well opinion; and when public
opinion is of tune, then the individual conscience
needs dOctOIing. So let no one lay the "lattering
JUNCTION TO his soul, that because the public is to
blame for the existence of drunkenness and its evils
the individual hide in the crowd from personal
responsibility and srk his due proportion of it off
npOn the shoulders of that impersOnal, intangible
scape-goat called the public.
CANDOR