The Wellington enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 1867-188?, 1882-09-06

the Republicans have made tenn
perance a party measure, but only that
large majority were in favor of temper
ance legislation, as their course in the Leg
islature for many years has clearly shown,
and to charge them with dishonesty be-
cause, having a working majority, they did
not compel every member to vote for tenn
perance measures, is to assume that Prohi-
bition is a cardinal doctrine, and that in
order 10 be loyal to his party, he must vote
for temperance measures. Some sections,
though Republican in politics, are unfor-
tunately not in favor of temperance legis-
lation, and with nearly the whole Demo
cratic delegation combined with this mi
nority, the Republican party has never
been in a condition to enact temperance
measures, and to demand it, is not only
unreasonable, but absurd. Each member,
in this matter, acts on his own judgment,
and if the Prohibitionists would try TO ed
ucate public sentiment in those localities
till they could send temperance men to
represent them, instead of trying to de-
feat every Republican regardless
of his position on the temperance
question, they would appear more consist
ent and less like irreconcilable fanatics.
The leaders of political parties are like
their constituents as a rule, no better, no
worse, and faithfully represent the average
intelligence and virtue, and if all the repre-
sentatives of the party do not favor Prohibi-
tionI is because the people who elect them
do not, and if our friends will devote their
energies to educating the people where it
will do the most good, and leave off abuse
ing the whole Republican party, they will
win the confidence of honest men, who, as
much as themselves, desire to wipe out the
curse of intemperance.
The proposition to tax the liquor interest
with moral certainty Of driving all the
slow dives" out of the business and adding
about S3000000 to our revenue, is not so
repugnant to our moral sense as to that OF
our correspondent. Unless we can have
license, which is better, taxation means
diminishing the number of places of
temptation by one half, and the payment
by the saloon men of $3, 100000 of expense
for which they are responsible, and which
the innocent now have to pay. 1t is not
the best thing, but until the temperance
men. are strong enough to give us prohibi-
ton, it is preferable to nothing.
The remark that."the ENTERPRISE does
not tell us what amount of tax would in
part compensate for bodies killed, souls
destroyed and families ruined,' is simply
nonsense. Nobody but Prohibitionist
les and souls and the peace of families.
Does our correspondent think there will
be any less moral and physical ruin by
free trade in rum than if the dealers were
obliged to pay toward the support of the
impoverished widows. and orphans and
the government expense entailed by the
crime of drunkenness, S3,O00,0O0 of their
profits? Isn't it about time to drop that
kind of an argument? We don't propose
to legalize the traffic, or give it any rights
1t does not now possess. If it can be taxed
or hedged about with regulations and re-
strictions until its evils are reduced one
fourth to one-half, and make it contribute
$3,OO0,O0O towards paying the expense it
inflicts upon US, why in the name of reason
not do itg The condition we now occupy
is free trade in rum. To say that the peo-
lpe are any better off by reason of that
mo license clause in the Constitution, is
to say what is untrue. Taxation and re-
striction like that proposed by the Pond
law is infinitely better than free trade as
we now have il, and would be an advance
to higher ground on this question. 1t is
almost laughable to hear a man talk about
removing the safeguard of no license, and
letting in upon us the curse of this system
of traffic. Can any one picture to himself
any possible condition worse than the pres
ent? 1t is only another illustration of how
impracticable man can be who puts the
ory in place of experience.
In answer to the first question, would
say we do not propose to legalize or
license the traffic, but if the people are
not ready TO abolish it we would restrict il
and put burdens upon it and relieve Soc
iety as far as possible, regardless of any
fine spun moral theories about the State
being partaker in the crimes of the liquor
sellers, because it obliges them to pay a tax,
and this answer includes the second ques-
ton.
The third inquiry introduces a'supposi-
ton not applicable to any one who pro-
poses a tax on liquor selling. 1t is not
proposed to exempt from justice or give
them any priyeliges they do not now pos
sess under this much talked of"no license"
clause of the Constitution.
In conclusion, if our Prohibition friends
will stop calling hard names, exercise q
little charity toward those who cannot see
through their spectacles, allow others who
are as conscientious and wise as themselves
the same right of private judgement they
desire, get down from their fine spun theo-
retical stills and take things as they are
and not as they ought TO be, and perhaps
will be five or ten years hence, they may ex-
pect to win the confidence of a large class of
as good temperance men as they are; but
while they present the anomaly ofpreach-
ing temperance in language and by meth
DDS not excelled in violence and unreasona-
bleness by any species of intemperance now
known, they need not wonder if those who
differ from them lose respect for and pa
tience with them. In great moral reform
like this the methods Onward politics ought
not to be practiced, and so long as they
are, no substantial progress need be ex-
pected.