Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1881-12-09
OLYMPIA. WASHINGTON TER.
FRIDAY EVE'G, DEC. 9, 1881.
Satan'S Methods.

The Walla Walla Cnion oppose:
a prohibitory enactment. 1t style.
such a statute sumptuary law,
and defines its purpose to be &c
" specify what mankind shall eat OF
drink" Now without desiring to bt
captious, We object to the use Of the
word as well as the meaning given to
it. A high-sounding term is oftel
hurled at advocates of reform, and
although it may not always strike
the object for which it is aimed, it is
almost sure to hit some timid per.
son on the anxious seat" and 81
lence his good intentions as long as
its resonant svllables vibrate upon
his ears. A sumptuary law is not
as the Union assumes, a rule pre-
scribing what mankind shall eat or
drink" and if prohibition does this
it accomplishes much more than has
ever been claimed for such enact.
ments. Its primary object is to pro-
hibit the sale and use of intoxicating
liquors, not so much on account oil
its effects upon the purse and the
stomach of the drinker as the disas-
trous results upon the community, to
avert the long train of lamentable
consequences which afflict society as
direct result of periodically de.
grading the mind of man to the
plane of idiocy and insanity. 1t
cannot be restricted to the narrow
idea conveyed by the term sumptu-
airy, affecting only personal inclina-
tions and comfort. It is not the ruin
of mind and body-deplorable as
it may be-which appeals loudest
for restraint, but the more disastrous
effects upon society and those in
timately connected with the inebriate
in the struggle of life. A man may
possess the right to burn his house,
provided it shelters nobody but
himself and its destruction does not
imperil the property of others. but
if either of these conditions exist, or
its loss may result in his becoming a
public charge. the community is in
terested in the act, and no is very
properly restrained by law which
jealousy guards the rights of those
dependent upon him as we'll as the
public who may be injured by bis
folly. A man may seek to take bis
own life, and be tlameless so far as
the law takes cognizance of the act.
but if the attempt is made against
the life of another, the door of the
felon's cell closes upon the malsfac-
tor for no other reason than to guard
tho right of his fellow man to live. II
prohibition sought only to restrain
a man from drinking intoxicating
liquors whereby he wasted his sub
stance in riotous living. it might
possibly come under the Union's
classification and be considered
merely a sumptuary law. But its
object IS far more benefcent. 1t is
to guard against the profigate ex-
penditure of means not wholly his
own, to protect the life of his fellow.
man which is continually menaced
when delirium has usurped the throne
of reason, and to save from possible
destruction the common property
which is endangered by the acts oil
a mailman. These are the primary
objects ofprohibition--objects which,
when weighed beside the personal
damage sustained by the inebriate
command attention from their mag.
nitude and appeal to the conscience
for legal restraint.
The Union admits, however, al
that the most radical advocate OIL
temperance reform claims, regarding
the cost of the liquor traffic. 1t con-
cedes that this indulgence makes mer
maniacs, that it arouses the baser pas
sions and leads to lawless acts which
make "court houses, jails, police.
men, sherifs, judges and the para.
phernal;a of law necessary" but
proposes to pay the bill Tor part Of
it) from licenses. To be exact, we
quote:
"Why not make gambling and the sale
and use of liquor pay most of the cost Of
maintaining these things? Men who
desire to drink should be made to pay the
cost Of caring for them when drunk. \
16AIAyeIS WHO 10 IlOL uTllA VI kdiuUlOi
should not be compelled to pay officers to
keep others from doing So"
The Union is entitled to our thanks
for this candid admission, which in
itself controverts the whole argu.
ment. Were it possible to make
Rum pay all the costs of its main.
tainance-and taxpayers who dc
not drink should not be compelled
to pay" as it admissible increase
cost would fall still heavier upon the
consumer and tend to moderate ex.
cess or the traffic would become 60
improbable many if not all the shops
would close. If this effect should
result such a provision would be as
good a prohibitory law as might be
desired. But it would be an essen
tial condition that it he rigidly en-