Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1883-02-06
WANTS AN EXAMPLE.
Editor of the Register.

WANTS An EXAMPLE.
Editor of the Register.
You treated Mrs. Foster very fairly
In your criticism Of her lectures here,
with u exception. You alleged that
she dealt In ''sophistries' to support her
plea for 3 p~rohibitOry policy toward the
liquor traffic, but you did not show any
"sOphistries," and those who heard her
and did not see any ''sophistries" in
her argument would like you to point
out a single example, if you can.
PROHIBITION.
Well, for instance: Mrs. FOSTER took
the ground that the policy of prohibit
ton as applied 10 the liquor traffic was
justified by the policy which every city
and State pursues toward many other
matters of public concern. And she
gave as an illustration the laws which
exist in every city against an individual
keeping a filthy stable or opening a foul
sewer, from which nauseous odors would
be diffused in the atmosphere and on
vey disease and death to the inhabit-
ants. She said the health laws would
prohibit such a state of things and COM
pei the individual to remove the often
sive thing. So also in the case of dogs,
liable to become mad or which were
mad, the laws would prohibit them
from running at large and compel the
owners to keep them confined, or the
officers Of the law were authorized to
kill them for the public protection.
These, and similar illustrations, were
given to show that %prohibitory laws
were common as against other public
evils, and she sought thereby to show
that a similar policy was equally justi-
fable that would apply prohibition to
the liquor traffic and cut it of.
At first thought this position seems
sound, but is in fact an i~ll-cOncealed
sophistry that is not only misleading
but dangerous in its tendencies if car
ried to its legitimate results.
The illustration of the offensive stable
or sewer does not present a parallel
case. 1t is right for the laws to compel
a man to keep his stable and sewer
clean, because the public cannot avoid
the evil effects. They are only evil and
of no advantage to anybody. Residents
may be subjected to the poisonous at
mosphere of q stable or W against
their will. They cannot get out of the
reach of the infection. So also In the
case of the mad dog. However much
the public might wish to avoid the ami
NAL, it would be impossible. 1t is rum
ming hither and thither threatening
every one in its path. The public have
a right to protection against it, and a
prohibitory statute is right that would
relieve the public from such q danger.
But not so in case of the liquor traffic.
Liquors are bottled and barreled up
within four walls. They co not send
out any diseased odors. They will in
terfere with no one who chooses to let
them alone. They can only be had by
the voluntary act of the man who
wants them, asking for and paying a
price for them. They are forbidden to
be delivered to any but an adult-a man
who has reason and judgment to de-
termine for himself whether to use
them or not. Every man who uses
them does so of his own FIRE will and
choice and knows the consequences,
and no man who prefers to let them
alone need be concerned for their pres
ence or effect upon him. 1t is simply a
question of individual liberty, whether
he will use them or not.
In what respect therefore does the
presence of liquors compare with the
presence of q foul stable or sewer, or a
mad dog? How can the policy of pro-
hibiting the one be justified on like
ground for prohibiting the other. Why
would not the enforcement Of such a
policy apply to arsenic or strichnine or
other poisonous drugs in a drug store?
But you do not prohibit in the latter
case. You simply compel such drugs
to be labeled "Poison," and then allow
people to avoid them.ii they choose or
buy them if they will.
We do not claim that this is a COM
plete answer to the arguments advanced
in favor of a p~rohibitory policy as ap-
pliedto the liquor traffic. We are only
responding to the request to give n
example showing that Mrs. FOSTER re-
sorted to sophistries to support her claim
for ~prohibitory laws. We might give a
dszen other examples II they were
necessary.