The Monitor. [volume] (Woodstown, N.J.) 1884-1892, 1884-02-29
REMARKS OF DIR. NORRIS
Before the Judiciary Committee OF the House, &C.
tuesday. February 10, 1884.

somewhat embarrassing to speak to this ques-
ton from the difficulty one has in deciding
which line of thought to pursue. The speak
ers who have preceded me have presented
different phases of the prohibition sentiment.
1t seems to me that in discussion like this
much depends upon the point of view. Men
looking at the same subject from different
standpoints may honestly reach different con-
illusions.
The friends of the liquor system must,
sometimes, be surprised that statements and
arguments produce no effect at all on temper
ance men, which to themselves seem unan-
swerable We are no less surprised that our
unanswerable statements and irrefutable ar
guments do SO little good. 1t won't do to
charge the failure on either side to stupidity.
1t will save time and possible mlsunder-
standings if we can get common ground
with you then, this evening. Please under
stand first of all, gentlemen of the committee,
that we are not here to discuss the question
of temperance at all, nor to convince you that
prohibition is wise or feasible. So far as we
are concerned you may hold undisturbed by
us whatever view of the question seems to you
personally the wisest.
We are here as citizens, representing many
thousands of the best people in our beloved
commonwealth, to- ask what it is our right to
demand. Nor do we come to you as our mas
tiers. You are our representatives, and we
respect you because you represent ourselves.
as well as for your own qualities as men. But
we come to tell you respectfully, indeed, but
strongly what we the people who send you
here, want you to do for us.
We maintain that you ought to give us the
privilege which belongs to us to vote our will
concerning the traffic in strong drink, and
that you have no right to refuse. We want
to vote on this question apart from politics of
the parties Gentlemen, your petitioners
have long held allegiance to their parties.
They have right to work with their parties.
They are attached Cor have been) to their par
ties and de not want to see them disrupted
on moral issue.
But it is certain that we cannot easily set
tie that issue in connection with party poll
tics. We must settle 1t in some way. 1t is
an oppression and an injustice to compel us
to sacrifice our party fealty to our moral con-
victions.
We wiH do it if zoe must, but it is unfair to
drive us to this extreme.
Gentlemen, there are some facts which ought
to be named here, must name them, how
ever, with cautious Difference. You are, in a
sense, sovereigns, and it is never safe to tell
unpalatable truth to sovereigns. Rulers, it is
said, never hear the whole truth. Now |
want to say that you gentlemen know that it
is oppressive to us to deny what we ask. And
moreover, it is denied to us by those who
have power here for the very reason that it is
oppressive. The strength of party attach
ments is well known. You refuse to let this
matter go to the people, because now you can
whip us into line at every election. You don't
want to lay down the whip. But we mean if
possible to get from under the lash or break
the arm that handles it.
Even this question of referring prohibition
to the people has been made political ques-
ton. The people have their opinion of the
excuses and arguments for unfriendly votes.
would make no charge, but, gentlemen, one
of our city papers to-day said, though it does
not favor u.s. that men were influenced in
their votes here by the fear that they would
lose the rum vote if they cast ballot in any
way unfriendly to rum. That is the public
estimate of the situation. We ask the refer
ence to the people at an independent election
so as to get away from all such temptations
and imputations.
But allow me a word on another point.
Gentlemen on the committee have pressed
the question, docs prohibition prohibit ?"
There seems to be an intimation that our re-
quest would be granted if we could show that
prohibition is a success, and on the other
hand, it is implied that you will probably de-
cline to grant us a chance to vote on it be-
cause it might carry and then fail which dis
aster the opponents of the amendment cannot
contemplate without painful emotions The
truth is that the opposition which defeats the
movement for prohibition every year, comes
from interests that dretId its po,oer, not its
weakness. That opposition is no doubt
strengthened by some gentlemen who con-
scientiously think it very wrong to make laws
that cannot possibly be enforced.
We know that when the people decide to
have prohibition they will show themselves
able to enforce it. But the point wish to
make now is this, viz. That in questions of
morals of right and wrong, the essential
thing is the attitude, not the prospects of sue
cess. We must hate and forbid lying, even
if we can never prevent it. And so of murder,
and every other vice and crime. 1t would be
a strange thing to teach that man must con-
sent to murder because men will kill. He
must always and everywhere oppose it. No
one can consent that an evil shall exist without
becoming base. 1t is an imperative element
of moral law to maintain uncompromising re-
pugnance to what is bad.
You grant our assumption that iquor-sell-
ing is bad business when you attempt to
regulate it. 1t is bad. The world knows it
is bad. 1t is devilish. It's tyranny every
where is unbearable. 1t rules and corrupts
the political world 1t is tyrant there. 1t
smites all who oppose it, and strong men
quail in its presence. 1t ought to be de-
stroyed. 1t must be; God helping it shall be.
But suppose this wild hope, yet we claim
that the state should forbid the sale of liuuor