The Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Or.) 1862-1899, 1881-08-26
THE TEMPERANCE QUESTION.


whose soul is prohibition, we humbly
beg to express our Judgment upon /
living and vital question, and on,
which of late, the exponent of pub
lie opinion of our state, the Oregonian
has deigned to notice. And by 8
peculiar process Of the intellect has
concluded that every sentiment
strengthens his theory, even the
contrary sentiment of an earnest pro
hibitory Governor, who based hi,
Judgment on statistics, gathered by
himself from his own state.
We believe it to be an axiom that
the essence of all municipal law is
prohibition; but seldom or never
reaches that disideratum.
When the creator commanded his
two children not to eat Of the forbid
pen fruit, He then laid down q frule
for their conduct which aimed at
complete abstination. In the very
beginning of the Adamic race one
man, through envy, killed another.
Right upon the wake of this it was
seen that through jealousy, envy, ay-
arice, love of power and malice. man
would kill, rob and injure his fellow
man. Hence the state was organized
ror mutual protection. There early
grew up as scions from the tree of
sovereignty, certain rules to guide
men in their civil conduct, or, this
supreme power prescribed certain
written rules of guidance.
When the aggregated wisdom of
the state saw that members of Its
community would murder others to
crafty a passion or an appetite, why
did the state not go to the remors-
less murderer and deliver him NOR
al lecture, place in his hands polit-
ical economy, tell him it is wrong to
SO abuse his fellow man, and point
out to him the direful consequences
of his act?
When a member of its community,
propelled by lust or avarice robbed
an old and honest man of the fruits
of long life of honorable labor, why
did not the state repeat its moral lee
ture and put in his hands an extra
book? But this is what the disciples
to the non-intefference doctrine would
have You to do. Eor do they not tell
you to educate the people up to that
state ofmiEd under which they would
not use intoxicating drinks to infame
their brains?
fit IS good to allow men absolute
freedom in one line of conduct which
continuously lead to bloody and in
furious acts, why not allow the same
freedom in all other lines of conduct,
and use their state panacea, moral
lectures?
But we notice with pleasure that
the sovereignty Of every state has en-
deavored to prohibit murder, rob
berry, adultery, ETC., by wise and
stringent laws. Now the value of
such laws is their deterring force.
They cannot eradicate the cause for
such passions are implanted in the
heart and brain.
II it is good to restrain mems con.
duct when moved by jealousy, envy,
avarice, love of power, or malice, and
prevent them as much as possible
from injuring others, why not re-
strain their conduct, when moved by
an appetite for strong drink, and pre-
vent them as much as possible from
injuring others2
It is plain that the conduct to be
restrained in the latter. case is the
use Of strong drink. For does not
man give money fol something for
which he receives no value? Does
not he, by such conduct, ot:entimes
deprive his wife and children of the
means by which they are to live in
dependently and enjoy life? Does not
he by such conduct tax the people to
support himself or family or both in
the poor house? Does not he by
such conduct tax the people in sus-
tainlng the criminal law, in erecting
and sustaining jails. penitentiarles,
houses of reform, idiotic and lunatic
asylums? Aud we ask with all can
dor, is this not a fit matter for state
cognizanceP
Then why not legislate against it,
providing the people are willing to
receive such law. And the very fact
that constitution can be changed
or amended is conclusive proof that
the people want the change or amend
ment. And think you if the majors
ty want law, that the majority will
not enforce that law, as well as any
law can be enforced under the chang