The Democrat. (Scotland Neck, Halifax Co., N.C.) 1884-1896, 1885-11-19
PROHIBITION.


by me with much pleasure. And
am not at all surprised at his views
on the subject, as they are old, and
have often heard them, or similar
ones, expressed before.
Real temperance may be called
the brother of prohibition, and, as
claim to be Prohibitionist, if not
!'crank," our opinions should not
be very different. Yet I feel called
upon to reply to some points In his
argument, in which l beg leave to
differ with him, not merely in ground
less opinion, but from a knowledge Of
the acts in the case.
The 20 or 80 thousand prOhibi-
tioniste, or 'cranks'' ofOhio were an
swered last week by corresponding
vote from still greater number of
their brother "cranks'' in the State
of New York, which shows that they
are on the increase. The men of
these, and other States Of the Union
who, for the past few years, have
advocated and voted for prohibition
instead of being fanatics and men
who lack "deep rooted principles y
are the best and noblest men of our
land men, who s'dare to do right
in the face of danger and abuse
men, who have the moral courage
to break old party ties, organize. and
support new party that promises
redemption from the trade in strong
drink not for selfish purposes, but
in behalf of suffering widows and
destitute children, Christianity and
good government. They are men
who love God and mankind, and,
vote as they pray.
As both of the old political parties
of our country have almost utterly
ignored this question of prohibition,
a new party has become necessity ;
and new party has been formed
which is here to stay; because COM
posed: almost entirely of Christians /;
and because the principles which it
advocates are pure and, it's object is
to eradicate the first evils.
Prohibition is political question
Prohibition can never be successful
unless backed up by political power
and this can only be obtained
through political party hence the
necessity of National Prohibition
Party, which we'll enforce prohibitory
laws when passed, for precedent
shows that the officers in neither O
the political parties will enforce
laws that they know, their party
does not favor.
You might as we'll try to remove
a mountain by Whit of the breath
as to try to ''eradicate whiskey an6
its evils by moral methods only
Moral methods are necessary, an6
do good as far as they go. They
persuade man which is right but
do not execute. What we want il
not only to make "believers'' bu
doors to give man chance t,
execute his belief at the ballot DO,
where it will produce the creates
effect.
| Is it wrong to make men better
to make drunken men sober, to max,
women and children happier, to adj
vance and improve our country NOR
ally, Intellectually, and religiously
If so then prohibition IS wrong. L
it wrong to save our nation 9OO,OO{
600 Dollars per year, the estimated
annual cost of liquor in the Uni
ted States, which is enough to Civ,
every youth in our country a classica
education? If it is, then I will admi
that prohibition is unjust. Is no
the "bar" public nuisance, and i
it contrary, either to the letter o
spirit Of the constitution to prohibi
nuisances? A man has no moral RICH
to make or sell any article that will
degrade and impoyerish his fellow
man and certainly he has not tn
same right to make whiskey, whicl
is such an article, as he has to max
cotton which is univcrs al benefi
TO mankind.
Where is the consistency in
mans believing that whiskey is al
evil ard ought to be removed, but
still, adopting a method which every
body knows can never bring abou
its removale Every temperance maj
ought to be prohibitlonist and it i
my opinion that if temperance men
will give this subject fair investi.
CATION, that they will become con