Thomas County cat. [volume] (Colby, Kan.) 1885-1891, 1886-07-22

met our eXa9cfaUcQ anu uutoSsSOAsHO.O
demands and expectations. NO
doubt many OF these laws, tried by
the standard of our false philosophy
have been in many instances failures;
but when we look at it from the stand
point of common sense and studied
in the light of rational philosophy,
and place by the side of other prohi-
bitory laws designed to prevent other
crimes, we find that they are not only
not failures but good wholesome
and successful laws capable Of an en-
forcement commensurate with any
others that do credit to our criminal
code. The arguments usually employ
ed to prove prohibition failure, if
applied to any of our laws regulating
public or private offences would prove
them failures also For instance we have
laws prohibiting murder, gambling
and the publication of obscene litera-
ture, vet men do murder, gamble and
publish obscene books and pictures.
Are the laws inhibiting these crimes
failures because men violate them oc-
casionally? And shall we repeal them
and su3titute license laws in their
stead and give legal sanction and re-
spectability to murder, gambling and
lewdness simply because men will do
these things in spite of laws? Are
we bound to license everything we
can not prevent? If so then is not a
crime known to the black and villain
Gus catalogues of crime and infamy
and shame that we should not foist
into legal respectability, and protect
by law. An argument that proves too
much proves nothing. Ifwe must Ii
cense one evil because we can't radi-
cally exterminate it, then it follows as
legitimate and logical sequence that
We should license every other evil of
similar character, and as we cant
prevent murder, adultery, theft and
lewdness we should license them.
In considering the rationale of pro
hibition as it relates to the liquor traf-
tic the question of its possible success
or unlimited enforcement should not
be considered until the antecedent
question of the righteousness or the
unrighteousness of the traffic is first
| determined.
All license law is based upon the
assumption that it is not sin to man
ufacture and sell alcoholic beverages,
while all prohibitory laws are based
upon the defensible doctrine Of its eX-
ceeding sinfulness. The real question
therefore that lies at the very founda-
ton of this subject is not whether
prohibition is failure but whether the
transmutation of good wholesome nu-
tritious grain into unwholesome and
unnutritious and deadly poison and
selling the same to the physical, social,
intellectual and moral detriment of all
who buy it, is right or wrong.
Every person who has the capacity
for reflection must see that neither the
manufacture nor sale of alcoholic liq-
ours can be carried on without violat-
ing the law of God and jeopardizin2
the most sacred rights of man. One
thing is certain therefore and thao is,
that no matter whether prohibition is
a failure Or Il success, SO far as its
practical operations are concerned
the principle itself is just and right
and founded on the laws of eternal
equity and justice, and for this reason
if for no other every good and homes,
man who desires truth and righteous
ness to triumph over sin and iniquity
should give his hearty Endorsement
and support 1t is not a question of
mere expectancy, but question of
principle. 1t is not measure OF
policy, but question of right OF
wrong.
If it is wrong to be drunkard it is
most certainly wrong to sell men that
the use of which inevitably transforms
them into drunkards, and if it is sin
to sell the drunkards drink, it is a sin
to license men to sell it, and to do so
is to be in the sin of drunkard max
ling. and also to be responsible for all
its casualties. 1t follows, therefore,
as just and legitimate coroilary that
to prohibit the manufacture and sale
of Intoxicating drinks is our impera-
tive duty. Having now shown that
prohibition is right as to principle, let
us enquire as to what it has been in
practice. Rumists inform us with a
flourish of trumpets that it has been q
failure. On this point | am compelled
to join issue with them. The doctrine
of the radical prohibition of the liquor
traffic is comparatively a new doctrine
as yet in its infancy, SO far as this
country is ooacerned, at least; indeed,
we may say that it is yet considered
by many as an experimental problem.
| 1t has never had fair and unembar-
raised trial, and hence its feasibility
has not yet been determined, and to