The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-01-18
A Comprehensive view on Temperance.

To the Editor of the indianapolis Journal
Most certainly you are doing the right way in
publishing many letters on the temperance
question, showing both sides Public discussion
brings unity Much interested 1 am prompted
to write this.
There is no doubt that if the present laws of
Indiana pertaining to the liquor traffic were
strictly obeyed, much present evil would be pre-
vented They ought to be obeyed-enforced.
But people have little or no hope of this for
neither will dealers respect nor willingly obey
them, nor those whose duty it is to force their
observance People largely feel that amid the
numerous complications surrounding them, there
is little hope of strict observance of law in
carrying on a saloon system. If those engaged
in the traffic would carefully obey it, much
harm would be avoided, but they do not and
they SO embarrass every honest effort to enforce
the law, that they may expect public sentiment
to be against them, and ultimately to overthrow
the whole business. But, aside from the hope
lessness of SO maintaining the observance of
present or similar laws, great numbers (rapidly
increasingly of people believe the whole saloon
system-any system that would keep liquor be-
fore the people to tempt them to use it's radi-
cally wrong in itself, in direct opposition to pub
lie prosperity, and should be Immediately sup
pressed by government, as gambling is, or the
traffic in vicious literature. Mr.. Dean says: mo
one should be allowed to manufacture or deal
in intoxicating liquors without paying a tax for
so doing" In this it is admitted that it brings
evils on the people and burdens on the State. If
1t does not, why should it be exceptionally
taXedD Now, the very purpose of organized
government is to prevent evils, instead of main
cx-cfa hat trri1 iV,gt a 4bafn
The very principle upon which it is founded
is to prevent suppress that which
infiicts evils. 1t certainly then should not set
up the saloon system But it should in wise
way suppress all ways of keeping Intoxicating
liquors before the people to tempt them to drink
and bring evils on themselves and burdens on
the State
But some one objects just here, that lit is a
business in which men engage to make money
and you cannot suppress it without encroaching
on personal liberty" Well, gambling is a bust
ness in which men engage to make money, and
men like the liberty of card playing. Publishing
and tratheking IN obscene literature is a business
IN which men engage to make money, and some
like to do it, and some like to read it. Carrying
on lotteries is a business in which men engage to
make money, and men like the liberty of buying
tickets, and yet government suppresses them by
law And so it can rightly suppress the saloon
system if it is against the public good.
The first thing, then, is that government
should not license men to traffic in Intoxicating
liquors. Licensing men is more than taxing
them for selling. 1t gives the business a legal
status. 1t crowns it with responsibility, in the
view of the people, as having Joined with it
State sanction 1t puts the State in a false
position OF participating in bringing about as
SaultS and batteries, murders. drunkenness
pauperism, and such like evils which it is the
aim of its establishment to prevent 1t binds
the State by contract to sustain the tpafficker in
doing that which produces much. The very
first thing, then, is that the State should keep
from in lie
by the traffic by refusing to license any one to
do that which promotes them. All should take
that position
The second thing is that the whole saloon sys-
tenn of planting and maintaining houses for sell
ing drains 1.-THE traffic for drinking purposes)
ought to be prohibited. Yes, we are landed in
prohibition. But let it be clearly understood
what this is. 1t is not saying to anyone, you
mustnot drink any Intoxicating liquor" 1t leaves
that to moral influence. But it is saying the
traffic in it, with the temptations connected with
the saloon system, is fraught with much dan
ger and evil to people and burdens to the State
that we prohibit the traffic. The State is respon-
sible for this public evil until it abates it 1t
can abate the traffic without doing it from q re
hgious standpoint without infringing the per-
sonal liberty it,must guard. 1t do it for
its own interests, even though one here and
there should suffer a private inconvenience 1t
Is an acknowledged principle that the right of an
individual must yield to the good of the masses
If a man needs it he will have to get it
SYSTEM which so much disperses evil and bur-
dens the State. Prohibition thus understood is
certainly in accordance with the fundamental
principles of government 1t is recognized by
the courts as constitutional. The liquor-dealers'
admission that they should be exceptionally
taxed is the admission of the whole principle of
prohibition.
1t is an error to assume that prohibition is to
prevent men from drinking any liquor the
ground of the religious wrong-doing of such an
act. 1t takes no account of this question; but
whether wright or wrong from a religious stand
point ii prohibits the traffic in it on account of
its flooding the country with crime and burden
ing the State. Ii prohibition were asked on
moral or religious grounds it would be quite an
other question. People should look carefully at
this, lest they be advocating prohibition wrong
grounds. It is leveled against the evils arising
out of the traffic.
view ultimately, consistently advocate the
taxing of the trafic-and the privilege of local
option to suppress it wherever it can be done in
county. We do this, not as an admission of
the rightness of the traffic, but rather in the
spirit Of providing to meet the evil it does and
the burdens it imposes, till it be prohibited.
Licensing 1T seems to recognize its righuness and
commit the State as partner of its evil doings
and brings it under stipulated obligations to pro-
tect it. But the State can properly lay tax on
any that will engage in the traffic, as is done in
Ohio. Let censIIring tax be put on it till it is
prohibited, and not an approving license given it.
that makes the State a partner of the evil it
inficts. And let us work with might and
main with moral forces, till the people,
not party prohibit it entirely. Let us
work in this way, rather than to form a
third party, or even to get either existing party
to put prohibition in its platform. A third party,
with simply this principle, cannot have much
following. And if it be carried simply as party
measure by either of the existing parties, it is
likely to be looked upon simply as
party measure, and thus be preiu-
in ViaN nf ha tbap inc11
its hostility, and leopard its permanency. We
want it carried by the appreciation of the people,
not simply by a party. And so, with this atti-
tude maintained toward it by the State, we
should work with moral forces until convinced
people prohibited the traffic, with the moral
force of both parties approving Then the
achievement is success.
1t seems to me that temperance people might