The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-09-26
A DISAGREEMENT IN VIEWS.
DR.. McLeOd's Remarks at the Temper
ance Celebration Met with Disfayor.
Advocates of Prohibition Who Objected to the
Address of the Eloquent Divine
What the Doctor Said.

esting throughout The first address of the
evening was by Col. E. F. Ritter, on the subject
'The Temperance Movement in Civilization"
He defined civilization as the conquest of ideas.
Men are reformed only as they are brought under
the influence of ideas. Great reforms have al
ways met with great opposition. Mankind,
strange as it may seem, has to be coerced into
taking advantage of it's best interests. Great
blessings have always had to be forced upon So
ciety as for instance the Christian religion 1t is
no indication that reform will not prevail II 1t
has met with great opposition on the part of the
people, neither does it signify that the reform is
without merit. In the march Of civilization,
one idea always stands in front and pre-eminent
over all others At the present day that idea is
temperance reform. 1t is the question above all
others demanding attention, consideration and
solution. The speaker thought that the differ
emit theories as to how temperance reform should
fbe conducted went to prove the great amount of
thinking and Investigation on the subject The
full-orbed idea of any great reform comes very
slowly. Temperance reform is only about 100
years old in this country, and has its destiny yet
in the future. Benjamin Rush and Lyman Beecher
were the pioneers in the movement, and the
celebrated six sermons of the latter temperance
are the Blackstone of the whole question. The
speaker thought that temperance reform is now
firmly rooted in politics, 1t is measure requir-
ing legislation. Take the temperance question
out of politics and there is nothing left for an
issue The power that put prohibition in poll
tics was not man. but Providence The speaker
took exception to the editor Of one of the city
papers, who denied that the licensing of saloons
is an evil. He claimed that if the saloon is no
evil. the law has no right to single it out to be
heavily taxed The world, society and
law itself have always looked upon
the saloon as an essential evil and as such have
regulated it. Granting that it is an evil to Ii
tense dram-shop, what right has the law to
authorize such an evil9 Society in Ohio is bet
ter regulated under the present administration
of free whisky than Illinois under high license.
The saloon keeper c!amors to be protected by
law. Licenses is just what he wants. This is
the best evidence that legal sanction fosters the
liquor traffic The speaker thought that high
license could not be enforced. as for the past
hundred years the liquor dealers have broken
and disregarded the liquor laws of the
land. There is not State in the Union
where high license has been submitted and
adopted. The case is different with regard to
prohibition. In many States of the country it
has been pronounced and unequivocal success
Out of 700 900 voters in Ohio fully 400 900 voted
for prohibition. The speaker claimed that public
fhought is led by the church. and all great re-
forms originate therein. Benjamin Rush was
right in appealing to churches to advocate total
ohofin <ba ~, he
for prohibition. Reason and common conscience
say that the liquor traffic must be prohibited
just as any other evil.
The next address was by Rev. d. r. Van Bus
kirk on 1.-The Relation of Temperance to the
Church and Sunday-school" He thought that all
varieties of opinion looking toward the abolition
of the liquor traffic should he encouraged, high
license prohibition and all other movements in
the direction of reform. The church and Sun
day-school should work systematically against
the evil. The church must educate society to
resist and overcome temptation. The lesson of
self-denial and restraint must be taught by the
church and Sundayschoo Teaching temper
rance by personal example is the best means of
promoting the cause The church does not
labor for the cause of sobriety as it ought.
Il is often too worldly, fond of society and
pleasure. Caste in religion and among preachersi is
the insuperable object in the way of lifting the
poor, lowly and degraded masses out of crime
and drunkenness. The church must teach US to
the thousands under its control and thereby de-
liver them from the dramshop. The church
must also learn the lesson of patience, the lack
of which is the cause of all failure. The process
of reform is slow 1t may take years to erad-
cate the evil of intemperance, but with faith and
courage The reform will be accomplished.
The last speaker of the evening was Rev.
James Mcleod, who presided over the meeting
His address was enlivened by passing incident
or. two that told of dormant spark of opposition
of his he,
remembered That a few evenings ago, at one of
the temperance meetings of the present SERIES
Rev. r. V. Hunter took OCCASION in an address
to criticise the liberal views on temperance of
DR.. Howard Crosby. of New York city, who is a
wine drinker himself and the most eminent op-
ponent of prohibition The reverend gentleman
also alluded to the fall and death of Rev Robert
Sloss, singing him out as an awful example of the
ruinous power of drink. Ithappens that DR.. Crosby
was once at Princeton Colegea favorite teacher
of DR.. Mcleod, and the Rev Robert Sloss was
his intimate friend. His reply to Mr.
Hunter concealed feeling Of reproof
for the critics of his tutor and friend
DR.. Mcleod is further hottie to the reigning
prohibitonist ideas. and his remarks in that
connection brought forth immediate replies from
several in the audience. When Dr. Mcleod re-
ferred to the Prohibitionsts as ''men
think ali others wrong Colonel Ritter.
Robert Denny. Ryland T. Brown and number
of others arose to their feet and denied the
statement saying it was not true and could not
be proved. The reverend Doctors address had in
it the elements of sensational effectiveness, and
could have, under certain circumstances, pro-
duced commotion, but at two or three periods
he was generously applauded. His structures,
withal. were received With more good nature
than desire to aggravate his opposition. When
the speaker finally got through with his address.
Mr.. Van Buskirk pleasantly suggested that.
owing to the diversity of opinion expressed dur
ing the evening. they might enter without
harm into general debate, in which the views
OF the many might be given. Dr. Mcleod did
not agree with this position, and suddenly
stepped to the reading desk and pronounced
Hunter, however, requested the audience
to remain in order that they might
DE heard in reply to some of the charges made
by Mr.. Mcleod. When the audience was
quoted, Colonel Ritter said that he would have
TO deny being Prohibitionist who was SO selfish