The freeman. (Parkersburg, W. Va.) 1886-18??, 1886-05-12

but 10 represS III, IL nay 10 A0o00
sary to seize private property and
destroy life; nevertheless, the mob
is what Prohibition is after, not
the life and the property. A
conhagration is a bad thing.
Prohibition says, "Stop it," But
to "stop it" may require seizure
and destruction of property In
the path of the fire; nevertheless,
the fire is what Prohibition is after,
not the property. A contagious
disease is a bad thing. Prohibition
says, "Fence it in; the house must
be quarantined." But that's an
interference with personal liberty;
nevertheless, the eontagio1a is what
Prohibition is after, not personal
liberty. So the saloon is a bad
thing. Prohibition says, "Abolish
it," But to abolish it, it may be
necessary to interfere with some
private drinking usage: neverthe-
less the saloon is what Prohibition
is after, not the private usage.
Can interference with personal
liberty be pleaded as against the
repression Of the mob? No. Can
the plea of individual right of
property bar the of0rt to stamp out
a confagration? No? Can the
right to 90 in and out of our houses
at pleasure be urged as against the
restraints of quarantine? No
Neither can a private drinking
usage constitute a good reason for
prohibitory liquor law.
If the law smites the usage in
shifting the saloon, it does SO only
incidentally. Good citizenship will
willingly bear an incidental evil
for the sake of an essential and
universal good. Life, in the end,
will be more sacred if we repress
the mob. Property, in the end,
will have better securities if we
stamp out the fire. Personal
liberty, in the end, will have COM
pIeter safeguards if we stamp out
the contagion. So, every interest
of society and Of the individual, in
the end, will be better shielded if
once we say, deternoamedy and
"The saloon must go!"
Lett be forever known, therefore,
that Prohibition Is not after our
property, our pe.sOr1aJ liberty, our an
djvjduaJ rights. The SALOON is the
mob, Is the confagrat'on, IS the con-
togjon. To repr68s the saloon, stop
the saloon, stamp out the saloon, Is the
one sole object Of Prohibition.
Ill. The right of Prohibition. The
path of discussion is now so cleared
by this consideration of the ground
and object of Prohibition that we
need not dwell long on the right.
The legal right is unmistakable
and not open to intelligent chal-
lenge. So court after court, in
State after State, year after year,
again and again, has decided. The
judicial opinions are known and
read of all men. They are over
whelmingly one way, and the most
of these decisions &re not under
constitutional provisions enforcing
Prohibition, but under consti-
tutions with no prohlbitory clause,
and based simply on legislative
enactment, where the considera-
ton of personal liberty and per-
sonal rights would be compelled.
So much for the legal right.
But, granting its legality, is it
mtorally right2 There are things
we know to be legal, but good men
instinct;vely shrink from pressing
them. Is Prohibition exactly the
thing as between man and man,
Notwithstanding its legality? Be-
yond a shadow of a doubt it is.
The moral right is just as I'M
mistakable as the legal right, and
not one whit more open to intelli-
gent challenge. Let US bear in
mind the ground of Prohibition,
viz, the evils to society of the thing
prohibited, and the object Of Prohi-
bition, viz, the e1tirpatio1, of the
saloon, and we cannot hesitate as to
the moral proprieties of this matter.
Look at the character OF the evils
from which society is made to suffer
by this business. They affect pub