The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1886-11-13

IL.
! Again, Friend of Temperance" is
mistaken III supposing that total absti-
! nence ahd prohibition are the same thing.
| They are two very different things. Total
| abstinence has to do with the individual
alone, aud is a moral question, pure anG
simple. Prohibition has to do wiCh 80
| ciety aud IS also a legal question. These
! two should not be cunfUundud. Human
| law has nothing to do with the question
whether man should abstain entirely
| from all strong drink. That every man
must decjde for himself in the light OF
! God : holy i.I, Bat human law, cog
| infant OF the fact that the liquor traffic
is productive Of thIee-fourthS Of the
crime, paUpelism and insanity of oul
| land, may "xerc!se its uudouhteG right t.
! protect society III restricting the traffic
or III aboiisbing it altogether. Prohib
| ti0n is il matter that directly affects so
! ciety. and only indirectly affects the in
| dIvidual; hence it is not, as is claimed by
some. 5 sumptuary law. Total absti-
hence, on the ether hand, directly affects
| the individual, and only indirectly doe.
1t atlecs society: hence human law can
not properly demand it, for such law
would be sdnpiuarY. Nevertheless these
| two things, entirely different III their ma
ture aud bearings, are often used indis-
crimnately, ard have given rise to such
HonsenscaI statements as this: "Prohibi
| ton makes that 10 be sin which God s
| law does not make SIN" Why. human
| Law doesn't make anything sin; neither
| does Gods law make anything a crime.
| God 5 law makes SINS: human law makes
| crimes. God law makes many an act a
SIN that human law does not make a
crime; 4nd human law makes many au
act crime that God law does not make
4 sin. All perjury In equally sin, but
| the law only prohibits perjury in i court
of justice On the other hand, the law
! ploilbltS the carrying Of concealed weap-
ons and the driving Il horse faster than a
certain rate in our cities, bat neither OF
| these things are sins. Does the human
! iiw mean ~ say these are sins? Certainly
not: no more does the human law through
prohibition make the selling or drinking
of whjskey or wine sin. The prohlbi.
ton of an act by law IS based solely on
the ground of its evil effects upon So
cioty, and not at all on the ground of the
| essential evil Of the actitself. The ques-
tion, then, whether liquor selling or H.
Quor drinking is a sin pcr SO or not did
i4''I tlltti illtp iIiE ISSUE " men WAS DclOES
the voters OF our county at the last cleo
tior. For myself. do not believe that
liquor dlinkIn. is a sin PR So; and | be-
lleve that those temperance workers,
who i'll their tauaticaI zeal insist that it
is, do the cause Of temperance ofttimes
more harm than good. That principle
seems to be coulter TO the common judg-
ment of men, to the ethics of all ages,
aud 10 the word Of God. In the Bible,
drunkenness IS denounced without stint
| and without limit, but the use of strong
drink is never sonfounded with its abuse.
! believe that IN the present state of so
cety, it is cAp@dient tor every Christian
man and woman for their own safety and
tor the sake of their fellowmen to alb
stain totally from Intoxicating liquors;
but that IS question which every one
must decide tor himself before his con-
science and his God. What | wish now
to emphasize is that that question had
nothing to do with the issue which was
before us last week. Prohibition doss
not say that dram drinking is sin, nor
does it aim to prohibit all dram drinking