The Monitor. [volume] (Woodstown, N.J.) 1884-1892, 1884-07-18
BUILT ON SAND.
The Basis Of the Opposition to Prohibition.

1
There exist wide differences of opinion on
the question of prohibition. But no question
that has ever been seriously considered and
disposed of by the American people was so
one-slded as this question is. 1t is true that
the battle has been long and holly contested,
and the end is not yet but the explanation
is found in the facts that the question is not a
sectional one that it does not affect a limited
number of individuals, a certain class, but
that it is intrenched in the time honored Gus
toms, in the prejudices, in the ambitions, in
the appetites of the prople; and that to con-
denim the use of alcoholic beverages is to
condemn ourselves, or at least some of our
friends. In short, the liquor habit and traffic
are lntrenched IN human depravity, and no
one better understands the depth and width
of meaning in this term than the earnest Pro-
hibitonists no one more clearly sees that
success must be won by men and women who
are saved physically, or mentally, or spirit
ually, or completely.
All opposition to prohibition is, in pretense
or sincerity, based upon few grounds,
which may be briefly and yet proftably con-
sidered. One source of opposition is the
fact that prohibition contemplates the discon-
! tinuance of all revenue for the government
from this traffic. High license, Senator Lo-
gan's bill, and Mr.. Blaine's plan for dis
posing of the surplus revenue, would more
strongly intrench the traffic at this PORT.
But no weaker point can be found in the
enemys defense The attention of the
thoughtful citizen needs but to be directed to
the immense expense this traffic lays upon the
government and the enormous drain it is
upon the resources of the nation, and he will
at once admit that prohibition will be q great
economic success.
Again, while license and restriction are
hailed as sources of strength by the traffic,
and their constitutionality is never questioned,
prohibition is branded as unconstitutional, or,
if made part of the very constitution by
the people themselves as an invasion of the
personal and inalienable rights of minority
by the majority. But who cannot see, if al
cohol has not crazed his brain or gold OBJ
structed his mental vision, that tile right to
restrict and regulate is based upon the right to
prohibit? If a citizen refuse to comply with
the conditions and receive legal license, is he
not prohibited from engaging in the traffic
If the state has right to restrict by requiring
an application signed by twelve landowners,
may it not increase that number to fifteen, to
five hundred, to a majority indeed who
shall say that 1t may not require that every
man or woman in the township or ward shall
sign such application? If the legislature may
authorize the council or the court to demand
two hundred dollars for license to sell rum,
they may authorize them to require two
hundred thousand dollars or any larger sum-
and thus give practical prohibition.
To deny the right to prohibit is therefore
to deny ultimately the foundation upon which
the right to license, Gf there be any such
right, restrict regulate or control rests; but
the very persons engaged in this detestable
business or friendly to it, are not bold
enough audacious enough. whatever opin-
demand that their business be relegated to the
same status in relation to the government as
that allotted to legitimate business such as
the selling of groceries. This may never be
its status in America
The other grounds of opposition TO prohibit
ton may be considered in future article
j. A. CAKES.