The Cecil Whig., 1886-05-29
Tl'tlltoplts Qol""'"
Not Crank-But an Illogical Crook

attempts to make point IN favor of the
license system in the county, by citing
the recent murder OF Green, popularly |
known as "Billy the JOKER" rs an Illus
tration of the what he facetiously calls
the 'beauties of a prohibition law that
does not prohibit" 1t does not surprise
me. or indeed any one else who ever reads |
the cecil DemOcrot to find such absurd |
and illogical attempts to create sentiment
against prohibition in this county. !
have often looked in vain up and down
the columns of Mr. Crukshank's paper
to find one word in favor of local option
when it was an issue before our people.
can't recall single instance in which |
ever read in his paper one word in its
favor during the campaign of 1880, and
"u'"@ IN the fall of that year resulted i'll
50 large "-'iority against the sale of
rum in Cecil
1t is not to be expected, oS course, that,
having been in the past an aid oAd an
ally of whisky, he should now be founo
i'll the ranks of those who advocate either
local option or prohibition. recolect
but short time after the adoption of
local option, reading in the Democrat,
cautiously stated, but still openly enough
declared TO indicate how his sympathes
ran; his opinion as corroborating that ex-
pressed in the Daily Republican, Of Viii
mington, that local option had proved an
| injury to tie business of this county.
So far then as any Importance attaches
to his opinion, his declaration of Satur
day last, ridiculous and illogical as it is,
needs no comment except to indicate its
illogical absurdity. lie says: Tine beau
| ties OF a prohibition law that does not
prohibit have sanguinary illustration in
the recent development of the my sterious
murder OF Billy the JOKER" &c, and
then he asks, docs any one deny that
such places referring to the illicit whs-
key den k pC by the joker are worse
than licensed bars? Does any one be-
| Geve that such places would be tolerated
in a community where the law regulates
a traffic which they demonstrate cannot
be prevented?"
AS he seems to be in an inqusitve
humor, woman like, | answer his ques-
zion by asking him another.
Would the liquor that nerved the arms
of the men who slew BILLY the Joker"
have had different t fleet had it been pur-
chasei over the bar of licensed saloon ,
Or, in other words, is man any less a
murderer because he was legally drunk
when he committed crime? | think
| not.
do deny that the Joker's den was any
worse than a licensed bar, since the in
spiration of rum is the same in either case
The facts in this case show that the slay
ers of the Joker ''primed themselves
with whisky bought of him. They had
| the money, what would have prevented
them, when they had made up their
minds to kill the man, from buying their
"prtmer' at the nearest licensed grog
shop? Suppose there had been very near
BILLY the Joker's'' grog shop legally
licensed dram shop, and his slayer had
taken at its bar on their way to kill him
one dram apiece, wouldn't that drink of
legal rum have been just as Sanguinary an
illustration of the beauties of license
system, as their drinks of illicit rum in
the Jokcr's den are of prohibtory sys-
TEN? Why certainly. What then is the
inevitable conclusion that every sensible
person must draw in the premises? That
the thing drank-rum-is the evil: the
incentive 10 the crime was the whisky in
either case, and which would have been
no less SO had it been drank in, or pur-
chased at, licens ID grog shop.
Let me ask him further whether he
pretends to assert that just such deus as
Billy the Jokel's" did not exist when
we had license system in the county?
He knows they did. The records of
selling liquors THhoW license were Just
as frequent as the prosecutions for sell
ing to minors or selling on Sunday.
If, then it be logic lily and morally the
fact that rum is an incentive to crime,
which the experience OF the world shows
| it is, why should it be sold 1T all , since
the lo.ical AID fair conclusion to be
drawn from this case as well as from
every similar one, is that the place where
it may be obtained is merely accidental,
but rum itself tie octqol a"m unJorm
ecH.
This is quibbing over matter which
so seriously concerns society-tLis nice
discrimination between the exact degree
of evil between the licensed and the un
licensed saloon. Is any saloon benefit
to society? promoter of the public
good? Will Our children reap a benefit
morally or ply sicaliy from its pes nee
in our midst? If so, then throw the
protection Of the law around it and make
it legal business. Put it on an cqualt,
with all other beucicill enterprises. But
if it is an evil at all then why license 1t >
There is not, | assert u father " ho feels
that the saloon would benefit his son. or
would desire or commend his attendance
in the bar room. This very fact con
vinces us that it is evil and only evil.
But, lays some on" ''of tl.c two evils,
choose the least God never puts us in
that position; He says "Ahhor that
which is evil; cleave to that which is
good If the saloon is evil, as we be-
lieve it to be, then we en- have but one
attitude towards it. We do Il, t, f ,.u $,
expect prohibition of the sale of liquor to
prohibit it entirely, any more than The
law prohibiting murder will absoutel,
prevent that crime. Will anyone dare
to say that :he law against murder is
failure and would recommend licensing
murder? If law must be violated, bet
ter have such laws as God approves than
to make compromise with the devil by
giving him hisagc~cy cy-rum-the protec
tion of law.
Yours, for the right, Mrs S. X.
EIKIoN, May %, 1856.