Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1886-07-24
THOUGHTS ON PROHIBITION.
sOME REFLEOTIOSs UPON A TOPIO on
POLiTf0AL AND SOCIAL fNTEREST.
The Rights Of the state in its Relation to the
Individual - Driuh,ng Liquor Not
Wrong In f-wnsre the Law
Makers Must Not Invade,

EDITORS lNTEJLIGENCER : 1t is very diff.
| ficult to discuss the subject of prohibition
without allowing feeling to unduly influence
| our rational judgment The question 10 be
| decided is, not whether we should like to see
| the traffic in intoxicating drinks cease, but
whether 1t would be right and proper TO try
| to attain this end by prohibitory legislation.
This latter question again includes two
points, first, whether it il properly within
the province of civil legislation, consistently
with the liberty of the individual, to attempt
to overcome the evil of intemperance by the
mere power Of law, and secondly, whether
even II this Is the case, 1t would be wise and
proper, under all the circumstances, to at
tempt such legislation.
Very much, IL not most, of the discussion
turns on the second point 1t is easier to
consider. But few minds are prepared to
discuss the first point, which involves the alb
stract question rs to the rights of the state in
relation to the rights of the individual, and,
what Is cognate to this the function of the
state i'm relation to moral reform. We pro-
pose TO present few thoughts on the first
point, viz: tho right and province OF the
state, Of civil legislation, in reference TO the
traffic in and use of intoxicating drinks.
The question Is not one that can be deter
mined either way by mathematical demon
stration, but it must be decided by sound
judgment weighing the arguments that make
for and against the probability of the conclu-
sion ; in other words 1t is what may be called
a moral argument and not mathematical
demonstration.
We present the consideration first, that
drinking liquor (using this word now for the
different kinds of intoxicating beverages) is
not wrong in itself. Wine has been used
as drink in all the ages of the world. The
Oldest historical records refer to it. In the
time of Noah already it was used, and used
to excess, or Unexpectedly. In all tho ages
since and in different portions of the world
It's use has been continued. When used
moderately 1t does no harm, but is refresh
ing and beneficial. 1t Is only when used to
excess that it becomes an evil The same is
true of other liquors 1t is claimed that be.
cause they are used to excess to the injury
of large class of persons, therefore the man
ufacture of, and traffic in, them should be
entirely prohibited. But this we maintain,
would be depriving people of their rights,
the right to use an article which does them
no harm, but is "A real Oenetit and affords
them legitimate pleasure. The case Is Ike
that OF games and amusements, which are
right and proper in their place, but may be
perverted to criminal use in gambling.
The state has no right to prohibit all games
absolutely, simply because certain persons
abuse them to their injury and loss. Gam
ance in drinking. Yet the civil authority
would transcend its legitimate power by for
bidding all games, and the manufacture of
all instruments that are use in gambling
LIMITATIONS OF THE CIVIL POWER.
We go further, and maintain that the civil
power has not the right to prohibit the
Incorporate use of an article, so long as the
individual commits no public wrong 1t is,
indeed, a sin to become intoxicated, but not
,.r,l.. IL. ,,.-n
man becomes intoxicated in private, and
makes no public exhibition OF himself, nor
puts himself in a position in which he may
do harm to others, the civil law cannot reach
him. He is then amenable to higher law
that takes account of all individual sinful
acts 1t is a principle of Jurisprudence that
onlysuch acts of an individ ual as interfere with
the rights or welfare of others can be taken
account of and punished.
And there is reason in this, because otherwise
that kind of individual liberty would be
destroyed which is necessary for the develop
ment OF moral character. 1t may be said that
this is not true freedom, and we grant 1t
but it is the kind OF liberty which is a neces-
sdry condition, in our present state of exis-
tence, Tor the attainment of true freedom.
Hence God himself has allowed it to man.
He allows him the choice between good and
evil, right and wrong. He does not restrain
him by outward force or constraint, from
doing wrong, il he will choose that again
his admonitions. Yet when he commits
wrong he is held amenable to the divine law
and made to suffer punishment for his wrong.
So the state has the right TO punish intem-
perance when it leads to the violation of its
laws, but it has not the right to deprive men
of the conditions, which are not wrong in
themselves but simply lead to the wrong
when miSused.
There is province of individual rights
which the state has no authority to invade.
We have said that there is reason for this.
Without certain degree of individual liberty
there could be no proper development OF
morality, character or manhood. The condi-
tious for evil and crime OF every kind are all
about us. We are environed by them on
every side. But they are also the conditions
OF the good. The opportunities for doing
wrong are constantly at hand, but it is by
resisting such opportunities that men develop
good characters, of course there are limits to
this argument 1t is not right TOR the state
to tolerate what is evil in itself on the plea
that 1t may be a condition for developing
morality on the part of those who resist it
1t would not be right, for example, to tolerate
gambling dens or bawdy houses on this plea
But the cases are not parallel. We started
out with the proposition that the temperate
use of intoxicating drinks is not wrong. To
deprive men OF this temperate use, or even
the incorporate use of liquor as a beverage
where it does not interfere with the rights or
welfare of Others would therefore be an in
fringement of individual rights The STATE
should not do wrong that good may come.
INDIVIDUAL MORALITY NOT FROM
STATUTES.
Again, 1t does not fall within the province
| of the state to produce individual morality
| directly, and therefore it should not aim to
| interfere in movements of pure moral reform.
| Even the diyive law had its limits in this
| respect. 1t could restrain evil within certain
| limits it could punish acts of overt violation
| of its commands but it was pOwerless, FOL
| true inward formation or reformation OF char
acter. God provided another method for this
| "For what the law could not do in that i
was weak through the flesh, God sending hi
| own son for sin condemned sin in the flesh.
| 1t il within the province OF the civil law L
| condemn and punish acts OF intemperanc
| that conflict with the public veal, but tn
civil law cannot produce the virtue of TEN
by attempting to remove or destroy its con
| ditions, Such course would, at best, sim
| ply divert the channels OF intemperance il
another direction. Men would discover an
| invent new and different means of intempel
ance just as rapidly as the state could destro
| the old.
1t is urged that the evil of intemperanc
| is so great, the greatest indeed, OF all evil
| that aillict society, and that therefore OK
| treme measures should be adopted to ovel
come it But this premise is not true. Th
} Scriptures say, " the love of money is tn
root OF all evil" The inordinate cravin
J for money is worse passion than intempel
ance 1t may not, indeed, so rapidly destro
the body, but it hsrdens the heart more,
destroys more all kindly and human
sympathies, 1t debauches the public col
science, and leads to public corruption, an