The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1881-08-25
DOES PROHIBITION PROHIBIT?
l Letter from EX-President Frederick
Merrick, D. D., of Delaware.
e Editor of the Cincinnati Gazette:

To the Editor of the Cincinnati Gazette:
No, it does not, if by prohibit is
meant the entire suppression Of the
traffic in intoxicating liquors and
their use. Many Of the earnest work
ers in the temperance reform are
quite too sanguine upon this p ,int
Intemperance can not, as was slavery,
be destroyed by a stroke of the pen.
Slavery was a creature of law, intem-
perance has it's roots deep in human
depravity. Then, prohibitory laws do
not prohibit the buying or drinking
of intoxicating liquors; only the sell
ing and giving them away. But even
this, it must be admitted, they do not
entirely suppress, not even in Maine
or Kansas. Is this, however, a reason
why prohibitory laws against the
traffic should not be enacted, or why
those which now exist should be re-
pealed? If so, what then of all our
criminal laws? Which Of them en-
tirely suppresses the evil they pro-
hibit? And what of Gods laws pro-
hibiting theft, profanity, adultery,
Sabbath desecration, and murder?
Should they not have been enacted
because they do not entirely suppress
the wrongs they condemn? Or should
they now be repealed?
Few, if any, evils can be wholly
suppressed by prohibitory law, how
ever stringent and however faithfully
enforced. Man is free, and despite Of
law can sim In reference to the traf-
fic in Intoxicating drinks the prac-
tical question is, What, under exist
ing circumstances, can be done to
most effectually diminish the great
evil of intemperance? An appeal to
facts seems most clearly to favor a
prohibitory law. | have before me
the the testimony Of Governors of
States, Judges, Prosecuting Attorneys,
and other intelligent witnesses, from
which I could fill columns Of the Ga
sette, all going to show the superb
ority of prohibition over any and all
other systems of suppression. I give
few simply as samples. III. H. Reu-
ter, Esq, President Of the Beer Brew
ers' Congress, says; "The State of
Maine disappears altogether from the
list of beer-producing States" Louis
Schade, special agent of the brewers
in Washington, D. c.: VERY severe
is the injury which the brewers have
received in the so-called temperance
States" Gov. Dingley, in his address
to the Legislature Of Maine in 1874,
said: This system has had trial of
only twenty-five years, yet it's success
in this brief period has, on the whole,
been so much greater than any other
plan yet devised, that prohibition may
be said to be accepted by large ma
jority of the people Of this State as
the proper policy toward drinking
houses and tippling shops" Hon.
VIM. P. Frye says: Il can and do,
from my own personal observation,
unhesitatingly affirm that the con-
sumption of intoxicating liquors in
Maine is not to-day one-fourth as
great IS it was twenty years ago."
Hon. Neal Dow says mot one-tenth."
The statement of Mr.. Frye was con-
Cured in by Hon. J. G. Blaine, Hon.
Hannibal Hamlin, Hon. Lot M. Nor
rill, Hon. Eugene Hale, and other dis
tinguished members of Congress from
Maine. Hon. Woodbury. Davis, Judge
of the Supreme Court, says: ''The
Maine law even now is enforced far
more than the license laws ever were. :"
In letter received but a few hours
since, Hon. Neal Dow says: THE
Maine law in Maine is, and has been
from the first, a great success, and is
accepted by our people of all parties
as the fixed policy Of the State. There
is no decent opposition to it in any
quarter" In 1854 Connecticut en-
acted prohibitory law. In 1855 Gov.
Dutton, in his annual message to the
General Assembly, said: "There is
scarcely in open groeshop iii the
State: the iails are fast becoming ten
antless, and a delightful air of securi-
ty is everywhere enjoyed" Rev: w.
6. Jones, of Hartford, said: "Crime
has diminished at least Is per cent. y
Rev. Leonard Bacon, of New Haven.
said: Never for twenty years has our
city been so quiet as under lis action
The report Of the Secretary of State
shows that there was a greater in
crease Of crime in one year under IL
cense than in seven years under pro-
hibition" Properly understood, then
prohibition does prohibit.
Similar testimonies might be pre-
sented from Vermont, Massachusetts
Voulr Donne1v1uania Iaorria