The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-02-01
LIQUOR LEGISLATION.

L1QuUh LEGlSLATlUN.
The country is certainly not yet in posi-
ton where the only alternatives are prohi
bition or free whisky. Without contraven-
ing any ones individual belief upon the
question OF prohibition, we can but think
it a gross Misrepresentation of the better sem
timent of the people, even of temperance
people distinctively so called, to say that
there is nothing between prohibition and
absolute freedom in the liquor traffic. The
Journal believes there is very broad, very
tenable, and very practicable middle ground
nature of local option or of license, and we
also think it to be the duty of all good peo-
pie to unite upon some kind of a
measure that will tend to restrict and
regulate the traffic in intoxicants, abridge if
possible the evils resulting from it, and re-
duce to the lowest practicable minimum
the crime and misery which are the Incl
dents of the business. The time in Indiana
for such legislation is propitious. The
public mind is aroused upon the question as it
never has been aroused before, by reason of the
it were better so or not, the fact remains that
all talk of prohibition for the present is
futile, That question is dead for the time be-
ing, so far as legislative action IS concerned;
license law that will give additional checks
and safeguards, and compel tribute to the
general treasury from the traffic in some
degree proportionate to the expense it creates,
and the leaving ofsthe whole question just
as it stands with the present defective statute.
We do not presume to discuss the abstract
questions involved but we do say that it is
not true that society is driven to
the acceptance either Of prohibition
or free whisky, and that because
the prohibition amendment is now dead,
cept free whisky, or that no restriction can
be secured other than prohibition which is
anything less or better than perfect freedom
in the liquor traffic That is not the opinion
or the position of some of the wisest and best
of the leaders in the temperance work. The
Christian Union of the past week publisheda
temperance symposium, to which John
Greenleaf Whittier, DR.. H. c.. Potter and
William II. Taylor, of New York; DIR. H. w.
Thomas, of Chicago; Ex-Governor Long and
Hon. William B. Washburne. of Massachu-
T al
tributed The New York Tribune, noticing
the article, says:
1.-The most striking thing about the replies
is the entire unanimity of the eight writers
concerning the merits of prohibition as
remedy. Every one of them is opposed to
it. The editor of the Christian Union says
that in addition to the letters published, he
received Others, in which the writers said
that their views were so far out of harmony
with those of the temperance leaders that
they did not care to publish them at present,
lest they should provoke to controversy
rather than to good works"
The letters of these eight honorable and
representative men are worth close study
All the writers agree that intemper-
ance is great evil; but they also
agree that it is impossible to suppress it
at once by decree; that it. is useless to pass
laws which are in advance of public senti-
ment that so long as the present restrictive
laws are not enforced it is folly to
think OF passing more stringent or
prohibitory ones, and that the present
duty OF all temperance advocates is to unite
and create a public sentiment strong
enough to sustain the present enactments
and thus prepare the way for Others
more stringent. John Greenleaf Whit
tier admits that the recent
elections have convinced him that
"a great work of moral suasion and per-
sonal example must be done before, law can
be made available He had before for
many years. thought that intemperance could
be checked by legislative action, but he now
thinks the education of the moral senti-
ment must precede legislation. DR.
Horatio c. Potter thinks the present drift of
the temperance movement is toward com
bined, effort of all its advocates in the direc.
ton Of wise restriction, "and in this" he