Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-04-18

~ ~ ~ssW ~ wv
I - ( vouan---s strong temperance
nnn,--nsy. more, an earnest advo'
- g totsl abstinence, and yet an anti
~ bikiouist. ! On reused to ssser.
SS6sl(. becauss l feel that | and oil
~ Who agree with mo land these are
~ ! ~, have right TO feel ourselves
1S1kisly dealt with by some Of our
&1coSsn friends. We have always
Nm h he habit Of CHASING ourselves
sg,onx the temperance people. Many 9
IRE / have said, "If | were man
skould be temperance lecturer ~; and
NJ most earnest efforts have always
btsp, and will always be at the service
q The cause. But the present attitude
o. ,hs friends Of temperance--at least oil
such - have given their views to the
public--is well expressed in the letter
from DR.. Hawthorne, published in the
DispafcA Of the 18th instant. Hssays
|" The church-member who stands by
the black flag Of the rum fiend Is no
friend to Christ" The
defenders Of bar-rooms are sup
porters OF CRIME, and should be so stig-
malised,r etc., etc. OF course such
language IL fgurative, bat unless |
greatly mistake DR.. Hawthorne's mean.
ine. his illusions are intended for all
dose who In tie present contest fail to
endorse prohibition. III am incorrect
IN taking this to be his meaning, at
least 1t Is safe to say that such Is the
openly expressed opinion Of the most
ssalous advocates Of prohibition.
Surely We must all recognize that an.
ashsmas are not arguments, and that
IN this discussion prominently strictly
temperate language Ia the most power
ful Is we'll Is the most appropriate.
But lot me tell, Is shortly IS wo.
man can, what reasons ! have for the
laith that is in me, and then let me ask
one question and am done.
The Argument (which to roy mind IS
Z powerful one) that "prohibition does
not prohibit " receives support from the
testimony Of numberless witnesses OF
unimpeachable integrity. The answers
70 this argument, SO far as l have been
able to learn, are two First. II prohi-
bition does not prohibit why should the
bsr-keepers make such fuss about 1t!
Surely, judging from the statistics they
themselves bring to bear upon the ques-
ton, they should in self.interest greet
with rapturous applause q measure
which will double their sales and quad
ripple their profits their very eagerness
to defeat the scheme proves its efficiency.
Not so. Any illegal act is Of necessity
disreputable. No man will be willing
" caught breaking the law. The re-
putable citizens who are now engaged
in the liquor traffic rilbe effectually pro-
hibited, and their mantles will fall upon
the shoulders Of men whose character
is already too bad to make its loss a
misfortune. The liquor business IN
such hands will become frightfnl
power for evil. Who dare expect any
conscience in the details Of his business
from man who deliberately dedes the
law in engaging in that business? What
noxious compounds will be offered to
the men who assist them in their VIOLA
ton OF the law. What regard will be
paid to the law, now fairly we'll en-
forced, in regard to selling to minors?
What . helpless, hopeless dupe will be
made OF the wretch who falls into their
clutches already the worse for "a wee
drap too much" and who, for fear of
must be kept in the hell
which would otherwise gladly kick him
out in the gutter, where Gods blessed
wind might fan him into life enough to
crawl away from his tempters. The
other answer is simple assertionto the
contrary. This assertion, it is true,
comes from men Of high standing. but
the very witnesses called to disprove
the statement that prohibition does not
prohibit have never yet, so far as l
know, denied the oft-repeated state
ments of men from all over the country
that throughout the States Of Maine and
Vermont, where prohibition has been
the law for years, the traveller may,
without any difficulty, procure drink in
any form and to any extent he may de-
sire, and this not in the large towns
only, but throughout the States. Surely
such positive testimony must meet with
proof to the contrary or be accepted.
Mere negative evidence is an admission
of weakness which should not be tole-
rated. If, then, these facts be true
II prohibition does prohibit the re.
spectacle and law-abiding citizens, aud
thereby opens the gates for the admis-
sion of the worst element into busi-
ness which gives most scope for vicious
we wise to speak OF 1t as
the only way out of danger whose ex-
istence is acknowledged by all?
Again : II is generally conceded that
Gny law is enforced in direct proportion
to the amount Of sanction 1t receives
from public sentiment. Now, nobody
denies that if Richmond goes " dry"
1t will DO by but small majority.
There will then be left large and in
fiuential minority whose private scnti-
ment will 70 far towards multiplying the
public expression Of the law. l rejoice
with DR.. Hawthorne in the agitation of
this question. 1t is high time the pub
lie we're aroused to q sense Of the
danger which threatens this whole
country from the alarming increase in
drunkenness. All this talk is doing
sood--has already resulted in practical
good. II ia to this discussion that we
owe the present enforcement Of the
Sunday liquor law, and this brings me
70 The question I want to ask: Would
NOT he cause Of prohibition be better
advanced by high license The cry
that some are raising Of loss Of reye-
nue. 10 the State is IN unworthy argu-
nsnt. II the question be to abolish an
evil. the costs should not be counted in
dollars and cents but still, as a mat
ksr Of fsct, II the licenses now collected
6cE 100 bar-rooms DO collected from
~ Seysnus to the State would be
one, The kw-abiding citizens
s .s. s .snss 70 cor. ,.saus their business
-" SH nave TO consolidate. a whole
s",s a.sisr could not then, as now,
s;.ts;n half . dozen low groggsries 70
q - !. !. s,rniys whiskey IN his war"