National Republican., 1886-09-09
PROHIBITION.
A New Plank Suggested Prohibiting
uFxoessiye Use OnIv.D


EDIToR NATIONAL REPUBLICAN In re-
sponse to your invitation 10 publish any
thing for and against the subject Of prohl-
bition, 1 desire 10 express an opinion on
the subject and leave your readers to de-
eide whether IL Is for or against prohibit
tion. Whenever any considerable number
Of the American people entertain an idea
upon any subject coming within the range
OF politics, politicians and parties may for
sometime remain non-committal, shift
about, and thus, for the time being, pre-.
vent even free expression upon the sub
1ect, but they do not extlngulsh the idea,
and like Banquo's ghost II comes back at a
convenient season with greater force than
ever, and more especially so when tho idea
is one advocated aud supported by the
moral as well as the intellectual portion OF
the people. Again II will come back with
greater strength than ever II no other is
sues are presented to the people which alb
sofb their attention. Such appears TO be
the case just now with the subject OF pro-
hibition. Any dodglng Of the Issue on the
part of those called upon to deal with the
subject can only be successful as long as
the attention OF the people is otherwise
grossly absorbed, and when II makes its
appearance stronger than ever ~ is an evil
dence OF the fact that such is not the case.
Again the constant lodging OF an issue is an
incentive for greater exertlon on part OF
those who feel themselves betrayed, The
fact that the prohibition vote in the last
presidential campaign amounted in
close states TO balance Of power, the fact
that the movement again shows greater
strength than ever no doubt prompted you
to invite thorough discussion Of the sub
ject. This Is wise on your part, for II shows
that you are willing and have the good
sense to yield to the inevitable and be, II
possible, both on the right and winning side.
The subject OF prohibition, politically
speaking, stands somewhat In the same po-
siuon as the subject of protective tariff,
which was lodged by the Democratic party
for long time by declaring IL local ques-
tion, so that Mr.. Blaine sees now the neces-
sity for taking the bull by the horns aud
making IL a positive issue on the part Of the
Republican party, thus forcing 1t upon the
Democratic party. In so doing Mr.. Blaine
is doing service to the country in forcing
decision from the people one way or the
other, thereby settling the policy OF the
government in this respect, which, In either
event, is better than an uncertainty. From
this very move judge that Mr.. Blaine con-
siders the depression OF business and labor
due to certain "uncertaintiesn prevailing In
the policy OF the government affecting our
business enterprises. While in this respect
fully concur with Mr.. Blaine, also hold
making itself felt In this great country
which ought also be met by certain policy
on part OF the government.
tits not necessary for me to here depict
the miseries and crimes resulting from in
temperance, they are generally conceded
even by the liquor dealers because they see
some OF IL. But the main objections made
to prohibition understand TO be, first, that
prohibition does not accomplish the pur-
pose, and involves q constitutional ques-
tiOn OF personal freedom; second, that IL Is
not the use but the abuse Of the use OF in
toXlcatlng liquors which causes the evils
admitted. These are objections which
should be fairly met. As to the constitu-
tional objection the adoption Of an amend
ment covering this question would destroy
the objection, but Congress has clearly
right under the constitution as IL stands to
make laws for the general welfare of the
people. AS towhether prohibition will eX-
tinguish the evil complained OF is an open
question, since 1t has never been tried by
prohibitory law covering the whole country,
and there are many good points which can
be urged on either side. But that the ex-
ccsslve use is the cause which produces the
evils complained Of is q proposition 80 self
evident that both sides are bound to agree
to 1t. Since, however, the excessive use of
the substitute, namely, ice water, the ex-
cessive use Of bread, meat, fruit, tobacco,
medicine, or anything else is injurious In a
more or less degree, would 1t not be sensible
to strike at the root Of all evils instead Of
one?
If prohibition so far as 1t has been tried
| did not prohibit, and II 1t does prohibit
only one evil, but leaves all others, is 1t
not a waste Of time and should not the bull
| be taken by the horns and all 'excesses"
be prohibited' Suppose any political party
would insert q plank in their platform to
read: "We are In favor Of the abolition Of
the excessive use Of anything injurious to
the welfare OF the people, and will make
laws as will best accomplish this purpose II
placed in power" it would not only de-
clare for prohibition, but 20 far beyond the
nearsightcdness Of that party. Could any
| temperance person opposed to intemper-
ance consistently refuse to vote for such a
propositions The adoption Of such plank
in the platform would cause stream Of
| explanations, teachings, Investigations, and
| oratory which would be educational In
| itself and take the subject where 1t pri-
marily belongs, into the schools, colleges,
churches, &c, ISAAC COHEN.