The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-12-27
Dio Lewis and Prohibition.

To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal:
Allow me a brief space in which to point
out few, of what consider, the errors and
inconsistencies an Dio Lewis's lengthy and
labored argument against prohibitory liquor
laws as published in your issue of to-day
He is certainly in error in saying that the
present aims and methods of tue advocates
of prohibition win the hearty support of
only a very small minority of the COM
munity."
Witness the majorities for prohibition at
every election i'll Maine, in Kansas in Iowa,
the remarkably heavy vote in Ohio recently,
where the friends of the cause, by careful
recount, are likely to show majority also,
and the 10000 petitioners for prohibition be-
fore our own State Legislature These facts
and many others, that ought to be named,
show that prohibition sentiment has the
majority in many States and is increasing
everywhere.
|. DIR. Lewis says vice is the only soil from
which crime can spring" Then is it not the
right and sensible thing to reduce and abol-
ish, il possible, the opportunities for vice
at least TO remove temptations to indulge in
in vice? If vice breeds crime" as he de-
cIares, would not the most direct and effect
stroy the parent? This is the way people
reason and legislate about the vices of
gambling, prostitution and almost every
other vice.
The Doctor admits that we have a clear
right to suppress nuisance, explaining that
he means legal and not moral nuisance
How can he deny that business that costs
us more in taxes and criminal court expenses
that makes more paupers, insane patients
and criminals tenfold than any and all others
combined, is not legal nuisance, and there
fore should be prohibited?
He compares the cook who contributes to
gluttony with the grog-seller, who is access
DRY to drunkenness. This is fallacious The
| cook is supposed to prepare only W that is
healthful and nutritious. If what he eats is
eaten in moderation there is no gluttony and
no harm. The grog-seller knows that there
is nothing good in the article he SELLS 1t is
evil from first to last and its tendency is in
evitably towards physical degradation. Its
only redeeming feature is it's first effect upon
the system, which is eXhilarating or stupe-
flying, while the after effects are always in
furious to nerves and muscles, if our best
psychologists are to be believed.
DIR. L. says that ito admit that a man has
a legal right to drink, and then send a con-
stable to stand between him and opportunity.
is adding insult to tyranny"
To be consistent the Doctor ought to OBJ
pose all restrictions on the traffic, and let
beer and whisky be sold as freely as molasses
and -four, or any other commodity. Perhaps
he does, and perhaps, too, he thinks, with
many other temperance advocates, that a
little liquor is good thing. If so, he should
announce the fact, and save himself from
the charge of inconsistency that otherwise
attaches to him.
He admits that the public safety is the su-
preme law. He has already said, in previ-
Gus paragraph, that drink is the great
source of taxes, poverty and crime the great
leave to him to reconcile the two statements
| cannot. j. G. K
INDIANAPOLIS