The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1881-05-12


for all legislators to observe, viz: any
measure can be enforced, irrespective Of
statutory enactment, provided public
opinion is sufficiently strong in its favor,
and no measure can be enforced without
this support of public opinion, no matter
how many statutes are p ID in refer
ence thereto. Well might he write,
"IPusQue iJi Joni mores rdlcnt guam aGJi
bonp heges" He was doubtless contrast
ing this simple people with his own cor
rupt countrymen. Here were people
having no laws strictly prohibiting usury,
but only IL prevalent custom discounte-
nancing it, and the thing was hardly
knownl How with Rome! There tn,
most stringent laws were enacted, pro-
hibiting usury, and yet no country ever
suffered more from usurious rates of in
terest. This same principle, we contend,
will apply equally as we'll to intempcr-
ance rs it does to usury.
Thirdly, VIC think the cause of tenn
perance can be greatly promoted by
some such wholesome law as that Gis.
cussed end passed, with some modifica-
tions, by our last Legislature. Let the
law increase The license on the manufac-
ture and sale of the stronger drinks
such as whiskey and brandy-and lessen
that on the lighter beverages as
ale, beer and wine Man is so constitu-
ted by nature that he Graves drink of
some kind. Men in all ages and in all
countries have more or less been addicted
to the use of beverages, and this always
will be the case. You might as we'll
prohibit some men from eating beef as
forbid their drinking Let us, then, by
increasing the cost, Danish from use those
strong drinks which are mostly the cause
of drunkenness, aud, by the opposite
course, encourage, in those who will
drink. the use of light beverages which
do very little injury.
Before concluding, let lis ask again
that we be not misunderstood and mis-
represented. We class oursclf among
those who favor the cause of temperance
we wish to accomplish the same end
as the prohibitionists, but We differ as to
the means to be used. We have grave
doubts as to the propriety of State
passing a prohibitory law, and even
graver doubts as to her ability to enforce
such law. We have no interest in the
liquor traffic, and God knows we would
be glad to see it suppressed! Circum-
stances led us to consider this side of the
question, and we thought we would
throw out our views for what they are
worth. Again, of all that has been said
on this grave question, we have seen
very little sound reasoning in favor of
prohibition. What has been said has
consisted mainly of an appeal to the
passions and prejudices, by portrayiug
the horrors of intenperance-in MANY
cases very greatly exaggerated. We
thought that by writing these articles
we could draw out some able writer who
would state the reaI iogicai grounds il
favor Of prohibition, and this was the
main object we had in view.
Let it be understood, once for all, that
we hold to these views through no selfish
motives or personal interest. We oppose
it NOW as matter of expediency and
practicability but should the State,
through the wisdom of her law makers
decide in favor of prohibition, there will
be found no more ardent supporter of
the measure than the humble writer of
these articles. Should it ever become q
law, we, for one, will be in favor of see.
ing that law enforced to its full extent.
God speed the day when, by whatever
means accomplished, intemperance and
drunkenness shall be banished from our
land, and temperance, order and sobrie-
ty reign throughout our borders.
w. w. Brown.