The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1881-04-21
For..the Anderson. Intesligenecr.
.Should a State Prohibit the Sale Of
intoxicating Liquors {

ShOul0 SCaC0 tTOulDlC Cuo SdIo Va
intoxicating Liquors {
Mr.. EDITOR :. Feeling deep interest
in this important question, which is now
agitating the State, and. desiring to pre-
sent some views thereon, submit for
consideration the following thoughts,
which embody speech made by myself
in debate between the Adelphian and
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,
toa considerable extent, have to combat
the force of public opinion and the doc
trines of some of the ablest men..of the
day. The evils of intemperance have
become SO 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 a good purpose. We
fully appreciate the evils of intemper-
ance as much as any one, and.believe in
adopting all proper and efectual means
for bringing about a remedy; but We do
not believe that a 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.
I. Such a Ian transcends the true object
and aim Of ciua 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
erroneously viewed and so wrongly treat
ed of as civil government. Government
is not intended to make moral beings, nor
to correct the morals of its subjects that
is, it is not designed to erect code of
morals aud 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 refexive
result which these exert upon the indi-
vidual; but it is only when a person does
some act to the detriment 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 50 gross sin and ever SO
immoral an act, yet 80 long as he does
not do this to the injury Of any one ex-
cept himself, civil government has no
right to interfere. This constitutes the
great difference between c;vI and aivine
government: this is the great line of
demarcation between crime, punishable
by human law, and SIN, punishable by
divine law. For example: The first
commandment of the decalogue is as
binding upon men, in so 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? Here
in the blazing light of the nineteenth
century, in Christian land, in the city
of Greenville, 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 I choose to-
morrow to erect god Of stone and fall
down in alteration before it, what gov
ernment under Heaven has right to
interfere7 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, solong as he does not
do it to the prejudice Of his fellow-men,
so long as he does no direct and imme-
date injury except to himself, and no
State can interfere. Now we admit, for
the:sake of argument, that the selling Of
intoxicating liquors is contrary to divine
Law, yet we maintain that, of itself, it
does not directly and Immediately injure
any other person. Remember, We say
ofIseyf;; for if man drinks excessively
and becomes intoxicated, he is certainly
injured; but then it is the result Of his
own indiscretion, it is caused by his own
weakness in yielding to debasing appe-
tite; it is not the direct or necessary re-
suit 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 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 then,
.,- ,,onerpnap{ from ita VERY