The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1881-02-24
Hartford Courant1
The Tenn perance Discussion.

Hartford Courant1
The Temperance Discussion.
In giving some account, not long since, of
Wendell Phillips's mastery reply to DIR. How
ard Crosby's famous Boston temperance ad-
dress, the Courant took care to say that it had
no desire or intention of joining the harsh and
strident outcry that is made against the emf
nent divine from New York, who was rather
to be praised for saying many things that
needed saying, and which few Christian men
have the courage to say publicly. We recog-
nize the honesty, ability, and the value of DIR.
Crosby's misunderstanding still more his fear
less and indefatigable labors in New York
city, in the cause of temperance. No man in
the country had better right to speak freely
and to be heard patiently.
1t is singular fact, now, that of all his
critics no one has treated him with more per-
sonal respect than Wendell Phillips, whose
criticism is most searching and effective
While clergyG,en in Boston and New York
bark and howl at their brother, like mad dogs,
uttering meanwhile little that is other than ex-
asperating, Mr.. Phillips is gentlemanly enough
to distinguish between the lecturer and the
lee ture, and confines his powers to the work of
answering the latter without vituperating the
former. But it should be remembered that
Mr.. Phillips has not had the theological ad-
vantages of such men as Drs. Miner and Cuy-
Ter.
That Mr.. Phillips has made the ablest plea
Tor the doctrine OF total abstinence that has
come under our notice, does not prove that his
argument is everywhere invulnerable. That
DIR. Crosby has made an exceedingly able and
fearless attack ON that doctrine, as the method
OF procedure in promoting the cause of tenn
perance, does not by any means prove that his
argument is entirely perfect. We reaffirm,-
that DIR. Crosby's positions, viewed in the light
OF Mr. Phillipss brilliant criticism, need re-
viewing. and some more cautious and guarded
definition. just here we reach the point which
is o. chief importance. The temperance ques-
ton is up for discussion, throughout the
world, as it has not been for twenty-five years
past.
Our readers probably have little idea of the
strength or volume which this reform move
ment has recently acquired in Great Britain.
ONE OF the ablest men in that kingdom are
engaged in it, and in the discussion of its prin-
clpleS. SO here at home. The matter is pass
ing out of the hands of professional temper
ance' orators. 1t is up for discussion, and not
merely for harangue and everlasting, une l.
durable gush and poppycoek. Let DIR. Crosby
and all like sincere believers utter their con-
vlctions Let the reviewers like Phillips come
upon that threshing floor with all their force
OF fails and fans to thresh and winnow as they
will l;-all the little dogs that are so minded,
barking meanwhile in some safe-distant circle
Thus, hnally,-small thanks to the barking
which nowhere ever helped anything or any
body much-we are in the way of getting al
the truth, of getting rid of much solemn old
nonsense, and of having the whole matter SO
Slfted and sorted as to furnish US with some
good basis of agreement or disagreement for
the great work OF rescuing men from the pow
er and danger of intemperance.
1t is only fair that we should notice reply
which DIR. Crosby has made to DIR. Cuyler,
though the reply was quite unnecessary. The
astounding fact that the lecturer does not agree
with Joseph Cook!-may be passed over as not
quite conclusive in the case. DR.. Crosby
points out that his critics ''confound total alb
stinence (Which he says is a good thing) with
the total abstinence system (Which is very
wicked thing)'
Some OF the men you quote (e. g., Mr.. Freling-
huysen) despise the system as much as l do, as 1
have known from personal intimacy with them. Tho
system denounces all who drink wine and holds
them up to reproach which it never extends to the
drunkard. The system travesties Scripture. The
system destroys fundamental differences. and so
perverts the human reason and conscience.
And let this distinction be duly regarded
and weighed, for it furnishes a margin for all
who would work by persuasion and counsel to
induce men to abstain, while it leaves mar
gin also for some broader practice that may be
temperate while not quite abstemious. 1t
leaves some margin for liberty, and an open
question for persons in different stages and
conditions of life to settle advisedly and consci-
entiously. 1t is we'll that DIR. Crosby has been
pushed TO make such a distinction, and to
make it clearly,-though not with any super
i aman calmness He puts in some sharp
words about the Justification of Scripture in
the interests of false doctrine which are whole
some enough, but it is too early in the world s
history to ask that temperance lecturers or
even theologians should always quote and use
the Bible in fair and honest fashion. When
that day arrives the temperance question will
have been some time ago settled.
With regard to DR.. Cuyler's allusion to the
failure of DIR. Crosby promise to shut up the
groggeries Of New York city, the reply is de-
servedly caustic, for it is crying sin and shame
that his labors have had so little support from
Temperance men,
You make merry over my failure Let me tell
you that for nine days in December 1877, they cere
all shut up, as the direct result of our work when
Mayor Ely and the excise commissioners stepped in,
and the latter, by girig false license TO every he-
gal place, put the whole matter back where it was
We then fought the excise commissioners for this
outrage, and jury acquitted them. Now, let me
ask you if your great teetota society," with its hun
dreds of thousands of dollars, shut up a single
liquor shop in New York city? Your comparison is
unfortunate Your society is a great one for
speeches and fiery assaults on moderate men, but
have yet to see that 1t has done anything to shut
the groggeries.
With regard to the "pledge," it seems to us
that DR.. Crosby's attempt to escape from Mr..
Phillips's criticism on that point by differenti-
ating it from a contract or a cOpenant, is a
piece of what Carlyle calls "attorney-logic'-
as futile as ingenious. The real point of Of
fence and of interest in DIR. Crosbys lecture
the bright particular moon at which all the
dogs bark and howl also-is his declaration
that moderate drinking leads to drunkenness
is an atrocious dogma" This is the position in
particular that in our judgment, DR.. Crosby is
compelled by MIR. Phillipss argument, and by
manifold innumerable facts to review and re-
state.
Ii he means that it is an 'atrocious dogma
to affirm that everywhere and invariably mod
crate drinking leads to drunkenness, then he is
nnquestionably right. To make that atiirma-
ton is an atrociouS insult to multitudes
But on the other hand it is an indisputable
and lamentable fact that in great multitude
of cases moderate drinking has led and is lead
ing directly to drunkenness. No fact is palmer
than this. How else than by previous stages
of moderate drinking do men ever arrive at
the point of tipping and Drunkenness? Hence
a real danger in moderate drinking, not to all
men, perhaps, but certainly to some men; to
just how many or what proportion is not GER
tain as yet. DIR. Crosby did not guard his
statement; did not even calmly state IL. 1t
must be revised and qualified. In his letter to
DIR. Cuyler he says
1t is atrocous for it implies that every moderate
drinker is on the road to drunkenness 1t implies