The Cecil Whig., 1886-06-26
THE PHILOSOPHY OF PRO
HIBITION.

ism and crime, goes without the saying.
Considered in any of its multiplied
aspects of evil, no man with sound
head and an honest heart will deny the
proposition that the liquor traffic is one
that calls for the strictest legal interpo-
sition. Up to the point of conceding
the necessity for some legal restriction
upon it, all temperance men agree.
Differences of opinion only arise among
those who share common belief as to
the character and extent of the evil,
when the method of legal interposition
is suggested, one advocating a regula
tive another a prohibitory measure.
Now to state the matter logically, in
temperance, which is the inevitable re-
suit of the manufacture and sale of in
toxicating liquors, depends on two
cause.-the supply Of such intoxicating
liquors, and their consumption. Re-
move either cause, and the evil ceases.
But there is an apparent difficulty in
directly attacking their consumption by
law, and in saying to a man under the
solemnity of statute that he shall not
make use of any intoxicating beverages.
1t becomes offensive sumptuary legisla-
ton impracticable in its operation and
at war with those notions of personal
liberty which are so thoroughly i'm
planted in the American mind. If then
the strong arm of the law is to be inter-
posed at all, its operation must be di-
rected to the supply of intoxicating
beverages, since this is the only point
where the law can make its agency felt.
Now when Legislation is proposed
that may affect the question of supply
it must be remedial in character, and
must do one of two things. 1t must
either on the one hand regulate, or on
the other hand restrain this supply. The
principle Of regulation is but another
name for the license system in its diff
ferent phases. Now those who adyo-
cate this system frankly admit that the
traffic Cor supply is an evil too serious
to be open to all, and that it must
therefore be limited to a feap persons
licensed by law to conduct it, and pro-
tected by law in dong SO. The COM
bined experience of mankind shows,
that this system of regulation of the
supply by license as a remedial system
always has been everywhere inefficient.
1t has for long series Of years been
tried in vain in various forms, with one
unvarying and uniform result-tailure.
1t never did, and never can reach the
bottom of the evil of the traffic, as the
accumulative testimony on every hand
conclusively shows.
The reason why license as regula-
tive system has proved so conspicuous
failure is apparent. II broteSSCdZy
undertakes to limit the uumber Of tile
subbhers of Intoxicating drinks, but
does not limit the supply Of such
drinks. The inevitable result must
follow, in the supply keeping pace with
the demand, and by generating an ap-
petite, creating and increasing that de-
mand. 1t is an undeniable fact, that
under any form of the license system
there has always been liquor enough in
market to supply all the drinkers who
want it and can pay for it. Who will
pretend to argue that high license
system by restricting the number of
suppliers, will either lesson the supply
or the demand for Intoxicating liquors !?
As remedial system it amounts to
nothing. 1t simply creates monopoly
to do bad business, on the pretence
OF limiting it, without accomplishing
what it pretends to accomplish.
Experience having amply tested the
ineficiency of regulative or license
system to diminish the supply of lntox
icating liquors there remains the other
method indicated the restrictive or pro-
hibitory system. 1t makes no terms or
compromises with the traffic, because
it aims at the destruction, not the tol
Grafton or the regulation Of the supply
of intoxicants. In principle it is per-
fectly legitimate exercise of the powers
that belong to civil society, simply be-
cause it comes within the province of
what is known as the police power Of
the state.
The general doctrine Of prohibition
concisely stated is this: Society has a
right to exist and to protect itself
against anything calculated to harm or
destroy it. 1t has the right to consult
its own welfare, and to use the means
requisite to this end. Now in consid-
ering the right Of the State to abso-
lutely prohibit the traffic in intoxicating
liquors, the fact must not be overlooked
that no greater power is claimed than
always has been conceded and assumed
by it under the license system. This
system says to the many that they shall
not engage in the liquor traffic, while
at the same time under the plea of rev.
enue for paltry sum of money, it
grants the privilege to the few.
Now it Is very clear proposition,
that if the State has the power to pro
hibit tine traffic IN respect to one-half,
or nine-tenths of her citizens, she has
equal power to prohibit it in respect to
all. If the State may make the bust
ness unlawful, except when licensed, if
she may confer the right to sell, then
she NAV withhold that license and make
the traffic unlawful to all her Citizens