The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1886-11-11
Your loving son,
JOHN A. TOWERS.
"Prohibition Docs not Prohibit"
From, the Bapt;s. Courier.

places NuOIS LuOSC Hi.u ou'OS"tS VIZ
iicen.ure of drinking saloons. No de-
bate can be had on the policy of giving
legal sanction to drinking establishments,
without calling OH. such defences as are
embraced in the propositions: Taxes
will be heavier" "Privae liberty
should not be invaded" "Sumptuary
laws are odious;" Prohibition does not
prohibit"
Each of these propositions, as used in
the interest of liquor selling, is fallacious.
"7arcs aciN be hcarier." But suppose
the very law which cuts off the profit
from the liquor license diminishes ex.
penditures, what then? In one of our
smaller towns, the income from license
did not pay the expense OF a police.
License ceased, and there was no occasion
for policeman. Besides, IS it not to the
profit of the community that every loafer
should become laborer, and does any
one cause operate so directly and power
fully to make men loafers as the facility
of getting strong drink? Many man
fails to pay the grocer and the doctor be-.
cause his money has gone into the till. of
the drinking saloon. But "private lib
erty should not be invaded" True, not
unnecessarily; but it has to be invaded
and surrendered in the case of every man
who chooses to live in society. BE who
would have personal liberty absolute
must get away from mankind and make
hermit of himself. There he may in
dulge in personal liberty without "let or
hindrance" He may, if he pleases, go
without clothes; but if he choose to live
where other people live, he must give up
the privilege of going about naked-and
thus, at every step of intercourse with
others, we are surrendering what might
have been called natural rights. In
civilized society, the highest civil rights
are those which remain to the individual
as the residum after the surrender of q
large number of original rights, a sur.
render made out of respect to the rights
OF Others If a man living alone in the
woods has right to move about on all.
fours, and to bark like a dog at every
passing object, be loses that right when
be goes to live in village: The villa.
gers have 8 right to be free from the an
noyance of such human caninism. And
they would assert it, if need be, even to
the extent of putting collar and chain
upon this dog of fellow. Now how
much better than this imitation of the
brute is the staggering of the inebriate
on the streets, the confused stare from
his eyes, and the extravagaut nonsense
or the profane ribaldry which issues
from his lips-tbe lips of man, gifted
with reason, capable of making others
happy, but now fit only to be Stunned or
concealed. To cut man off from the
chance of making such spectacle OF
himself is no violation of any private
light; it is simply the restraint OF
mans privilege Of doing whatever he
pleases with himself by asserting those
rights of the public which be cannot be
authorized to destroy. But 'sumptuary
laws are odious." Yes. But if cholera
is prevailing, the public authorities may
forbid the sale in the markets Of melons
and cucumbers. From fear OF lire 1t
may prohibit the erection of wooden
buildings; or from fear of earthquakes
it might forbid the erection OF brick
buildings. 1t may prohibit the sale of
second hand clothing bought from hos.
pitals 1t may prohibit the sale of
yeast-powders containing alum or other
deleterious drug. These may be stigma
tized as sumptuary laws; yet they are
good, resting on a good principle and
productive Of good results. And such is
the law th strikes at liquor selling, the
source of more miscbiefs to the commu-
nifty than those produced by hurttul
articles of food, or by infected clothing,
or by con6agrations or ny earthquakes,
or by all of them together.
But, then, "Prohibition Dies not pro.
hibH" We have said that this is an
epigram. 1t is the nature of the cpl
gram 10 say something that is literally
untrue. It must he understood fgura-
lively, or it is nonsense. "The child is
father to the man" cannot be literally
true. Literally the man is father to the
child. But as the character of the child
shapes the character of the future man,
we say the child is father to the man.
When, then, we are told that prohibi.
tion does not prohibit, We have a contra
diction in terms. A prohibition that
does not prohibit is prohibition that is
not a prohibition. Now those who use
this nat saying do not mean this. Ifthey
did, they would not be opposed to pro-
hibition. 1t is the very thing they de-
sire.
What then do they mean? Do they
mean that prohibitory laws Tor anti.
license laws) do not absolutely prevent
drinking? Then we say, the use of this
hackneyed saying as an argument against
such laws, a reason why they should not
be adopted, is childish; for there is not
prohibitory precept in human codes or
in the Decalogue itself that would not
be expunged by the same argument.
"Thou shalt not steal, !" "thou shalt not
kill" "thou shalt not commit adultery"
are prohibitions. They have never yet
absolutely prevented the evils forbidden.
NulIify them on this account, and what
a swelling tide of lawlessness, of theft
and robbery, of murder and impurity,
would pass over the land and bury socie.
ty in its turbid depths
Or do they mean that prohibition in
law has not been prohibition in practice?
that the legislation 10 failure because it
has no practical result? This raises
question as to matter of fact. Accord.
ingly, things are said which are assumed
to be matters of fact. Thus it has been
stated again and again that in Maine
itself the Maine law has proved failure.
Yet the most respectable Witnesses
public officials of the highest character
contradict this statement, averring that
a marked diminution of crime and pau
perism has been a result of the law.
And still more, the people of Maine,
after trial of the law for years, incor
porated it by the vote of a large majority
into their fundamental law. No testi-
mony can be more conclusive than this.
Recently there appeared an article in a
Texas paper of wide circulation, and an.
other in similar paper in Louisiana, re-
ferring to the alleged failure of rrohibi.
ton in Atlanta. No person interested
in the movement of temperance reform
could have read those articles ana be.
leved them without feeling depressed;
and yet the venerable editor of the
Christian Mder, referring to the state.
ments thus given to the public, nailed
them to the counter as false coin. One