The evening light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1881-1883, 1883-03-01
A PREACHERS STRONG PROTEST.
He Places Himself on Record AS Oppose Il
to Stringent Temperance and
Sunday Laws.
Severe Structures Which may Bring About
the Resignation of "a Promi-
nent Clergyman.

Angels in Baltimore, has created profound
sensation in religious circles by expressing in
the course of lecture he delivered at the
Academy of Music in that city, last Friday, his
opposition not only to the passage of any
stringent law for Sunday observance, but to
temperance, as advocated by fanatical crusa-
ders. "What," he asked, "can we possibly
gain at the very utmost by Sabbath laws?
Shall we get a due observance of Sunday?
Does the due observance of Sunday consist in
lying in bed, in reading the newspapers at
home? or. if that indulgence be prohibited, in
venting our ill-humor upon our wives and
children And can we fancy Jesus Christ
dragging men to church between a couple OF
policemen, or sending them to Jail for writing
business letter in their city Offices Is this
the religion we propose, and by such means
| to recommend 10 heathens abroad OF the I'M
| believers at home? Religion is at the very
core of our individuality. II the free play of
our individuality be interrupted there il. is
utterly worthless anywhere. No law can be
righteous, however constitutional, and by how
ever enormous majority carried, which pre-
vents the perfect freedom of our intercourse
with Almighty God, which turns our very re-
lgion into hypocrisy and persuades US TO ruin
our souls for the sake Of saving bodies. Now
| come to the
| FAR MORE COMPLICATED CASE :
of the proposed--alas, is not few States or
countries, no longer merely proposed but enac-
ted-the proposed laws for the prohibition
under severe penalties, involving possible i'm
prisonment, Of the manufacture, Importation,
sale or purchase Of intoxicating drinks, or, to
put it more briefly, the proposed law that
everybody shall be liable to fine or imprison-
ment who refuses to become teetolaler and
note that it is to be law, not advice or godly
admoniton. 1t is to be a command of the
sovereign power, and must be executed, if re-
sisted, by the whole physical force at the COM
mand of that sovereign power"
After well-supported claim that all laws
prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors
must necessarily come within the secondary
or optional functions of a government, and
are never justified except on the ground Of
manifest expediency, proven by an overwhel-
ming public opinion, DIR. kirkuS continued:
"And for whose benefit are the proposed laws
intended Clearly not for the benefit OF their
promoters. They need no such laws. They
promote them for the reason that they are all
pledged to the absolute disuse of alcoholic
stain from them. Nobody proposes law
compelling them to drink. They have no
personal grievance, and the proposed law
would confer upon them no privilege that they
do not already possess. Legislation for them
of the kind proposed would be as absurd as a
law allowing them to go to bed at night, or to
kiss their wives and children. 1t must be in
tended. then, either to benefit nobody or TO
benefit the people who do not want it, who
regard it
| AS A INDUSTRIOUS TYRANNY.
and who will certainly resist it by every posi-
bic means at their command.
There are countless multitudes who find
pleasure and who believe that they obtain
real benefit in TIE moderate use of alcoholic
stimulants. They have wine or beer at din
ner. They take it at home, at the houses OF
their friends, whenever and wherever they
think proper. They please themselves, and
they are guilty of neither fraud nor violence
towards others. Many of them are devoted
Christians, patriotic citizens, and among the
most benehcent of mankind. Now, what
would be thought of law compelling every
body to some particular course of conduct, be-
cause not he himself but somebody else finds
pleasure in it Every woman, for instance,
to perambulate the streets with gang of
fanatics, take forcible possession of other
peoples houses and interrupt the lawful bust
ness of her neighbors; every man to drink
wine at dinner; or to have drunken spree
every six weeks. Such laws would be impos-
sible from their sheer absurdity but they
would only differ in degree, not at all in prin-
ciple, from the proposed Prohibitory laws, for
who is to Judge what is necessary to the real
happiness Of the whole population of the
United States in such matter as private hab-
its of eating and drinking! We have not
only tetotallers among us, but vegetarians and
anti-tobacco societies. These also have their
views of happiness and benefit Some vege-
tarians regard eating meet as beastly vice,
others as a sin against God. They would be
lieye that they had conferred benefit upon
anybody if they could persuade him to live on
cabbages and eggs. Do we propose to allow
them TO confer this benefit upon us by the aid
of the policemen, and to send us to Jail if we
eat tenderloin steak or dozen oysters on
the half shell. and would the intrinsic absurd
ity of such interference with our private
habits and private opinions be in the slightest
degree lessened if the vegetarianS should be-
come numerical majority? You cannot get
even
! A SINGLE WISE MAN
by simply setting million fools to play at bal
lot boxing"
Continuing he said: "I legislative inter-
ference with sin as distinguished from crime