The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1881-04-21
For..he Anderson. Inteli;geneer.
Should q State Prohibit the Sale or
Intoxicating Liquors

intoxicating Liquors
MR. EDITOR g Feeling a deep interest
il .hiS important question, which is now
agitafing the State, and desiring to pre-.
sent some views thereon, I submit for
confederation the following thoughts,
which embody Q speech made by myself
in debate between The Adelphian ard
Philosophical Societies of Furman Uni.
verSity, in April, 1879:
In espousing the negative side of this
question: we are aware that we have
many odds. to contend against; we will,
TO considerable extent, have to combat
the force of public opinion and the doc
trines of some of the ab,est men''of the
day. The evils Of intemperance have
become 80 great, and the horrors result
ing from the use Of intoxicating liquors
have been set before us in such glowing
colors, that men are not disposed to look
upon such subject as the present one
with an impartial eye. In their zeal to
find remedy for these evils, they allow
themselves to go beyond their better
judgments, and are found advocating
measures which they would not do, were
they not thus blinded by an excessive
ardor to accomplish q good purpose. We
fully appreciate the evils of intemper-
ance as much as any one, and.believe in
adopting all proper and efTectual means
for bringing about remedy; but we do
not believe that State-a civil govern
ment-ought to pass law prohibiting
the sale of ardent spirits, and if you will
but give us an impartial hearing, we will
endeavor to state fairgrounds upon which
the opinion is based.
l. Such a ia,o transcends the true object
and aim Of ciuI government OF all the
subjects which are brought up for con-
sideration and discussion by men, we
think there is none which has been so
enormously viewed and so wrongly treat
ed of rs civil government. Government
is not intended to make moral beings, nor
to correct the morals of its subjects
is, it is not aesigued 10 erect u code Of
morals and direct men, in specific cases,
to act this way or that, just as it sees
proper: it is not intended to guide the
morals or affect the actions of men in so
far as concerns the immediate rehexive
result which these exert upon the indi-
vidual; but it is only when person does
some act to the dctrimcnt of his fellow
man, or to the injury of his government,
that government can step in and prevent
his acting as he chooses. A man may
commit ever 80 gross sin AID ever so
immoral an act. yet 30 long as he does
not do this to the injury of any one ex-
ccpt himself, civil government has no
right to interfere. This constitutes the
great difference between ciuH and divine
government: this is the great line of
demarcation between crime, punishable
by human law, and sin, punishable by
divine law. For example: Tho first
commandment of the decalogue is as
binding upon men, in 30 far as their re.
lation 10 God is concerned, as any of the
other mandates Of Jehovah; and yet who
would dare to say that civil government
has right to take cognizance Of the
violation of this commandment? Hero
in the blazing light of the nineteenth
century, in Christian land, in the city
of Grcenville, with its several churches
and numerous pious Christians, with its
several institutions of learning, endeayor-
ing to inculcate the doctrines of Chris
tianity and morality, if 1 choose to-
morrow to erect god of stone and fall
down in alteration before it, wha. gov.
ernment under Heaven has right to
interfere2 So with several Of the other
commandments. All are equally bind
ing upon every individual, and he who
violates any of them is guilty of great
sin in the sight of God, and will be pun
ished accordingly; and yet, when it
comes to civil government, one may vio-
late any of them, SO long rs he does not
do it to the prejudice of his fellow men,
30 long as he docs no direct and imme-
diate injury except to himself, and no
State can interfere. Now we admit, for
thesake of argument, that the selling of
intoxicating liquors is contrary to divine
law, yet we main;ain that, of itself, it
does not directly and Immediately injure
any other person. Remember, We say
Of itsey;; for if man drinks excessively
and becomes intoxicated, he is certainly
injured; but then it is the result of his
own iniiscrction, it is caused by mis- own
weakness in yielding to debasing appe-
tite; it is not the direct or necessary re.
sult of the sale of the liquor. 1t is not
the seller who is the cause of the injury !;
for if the man had drank moderately, he
would not have been injured; but it is
the buyer, who, of his own accord, drinks
excessively and Injuries himself. And
indeed n large number of these men are
not injured even in this indirect way.
How many men (yea, how large ma
jority) take their social drinks and are
never injured thereby Now then, if
the sale of intoxicating liquors. does not
Of Itself injure any person, if it does not
Of itself in any way injure the buyer, ex-
cept by his own voluntary act, how Shen,
1 say, can government, from its very