The freeman. (Parkersburg, W. Va.) 1886-18??, 1886-05-12
The Great Question.
Should Prohibition he
Made q Political Issue?
HERRICK JOHNSON, DID,, of Chicago,
in Fl omoiletic Review, (N "

WILL uOt We SOVOoh III 'HA"
question, while a wide doubt re-
mains as to the right of Prohibition.
The doubt exists. 1t is prevalent
and pervasive. Voters, by the hun
bred thousand, openly or silently
question whether legal Prohibition
is not "sumptuary legislation" and
an uniustifable attack on "person-
al liberty or "priyate rights"
Is Prohibition right, as princi-
pie? It's righteousness can be
determined intelligently only by a
consideration of it's ground and
object. And all three-the ground,
the object and the right-need to
be distinctly before US if we would
clear the air of the fog that gathers
abodt the political aspects of this
question. Right views on these
basal points will illuminate the
whole path Of our present discus
sion. Let US, therefore, consider, as
Indispensable prerequisites to the
complete argument,
l. The ground Of Prohibition,
Why is any act prohibited by pub
lie law? There is but one answer
to this question. The legal prohi-
bition of an act is solely on the
ground Of It's evA effect upon society,
and not at all on the ground of the
inherent evil Of the act itself. Public
law does indeed make distin ction
between the things it prohibits,
classifying them as evils in them
selves (meala IN se), and evils prohi
bited (nsaJo prohjdjta); but the
ground of their prohibition is
exactly the same. Homicide, an
act evil in itself (maJun IN se), is
prohibited. SO the building frame
house within the fire limits of a
ciGy, al act not evil in itself, is
prohibited. There is inherent moral
wrong in homicide. There is no
inherent moral wrong in building
q frame house, But the law seeks
to prevent the one as well as the
other, solely to protect society,"
Again, the law will punish me if |
attempt homicide. 1t will not
punish me if | attempt suicide.
Each act is n1Gluno IN Sc, however.
The law does not prevent my tell
ing 3 lie on the street, but it
founders Prohibition against my
telling a lie on the witness stand
in Court OF Justice. The char
acter of the evil wrought by the lie
makes the difference, | can destroy
my house by pick and crow bar,
but | cannot set fire to it. Why
not? Because the fire will en-
danger the property of my neig b.
Dor, The pick and crowbar will
noG. But in each case the house
gets destroyed. l can put my hand
in my own pocket and pull out
gold piece and toss it into the lake,
and the law has nothing to say J;
but let me try that experiment on
my neighbours pocket, and | run
against legal prohibition. The
gold in my pocket is worth just as
much as the gold in my neighbours
ROShOV, ahN uSe ~ AhNSh IhAoloAt
value is thrown awayin either case !;
but yhose pocket the gold comes from,
is what determines the difference.
Clearly the inherent rightfulness
or wrongfulness OF an act has
nothing whatever to do with the
prohibition of it by law. The
amount and character of the evil
effects upon others are what deter
mine whether any given thing
shall be prohibited or not. If the
evils are open, public, imperiling
public interests, disturbing public
order, endangering property or
human life, then the ground is
furnished for Prohibition. Ten
thousand things are wrong in them
selves that the law never touches,
and never ought to touch while
things, right and innocent in them
selves, the law often prohibits.
One need only have this in minc
to see the absurdity of the charge
that "Prohibition proceeds upor
the false assumption that alcoho
is poison, and that any degree O.
it's habitual use is wrong" Prohi
ition proceeds upon nothing O
lhe kind. Prohibition is on thu
i L L