Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-03-28
For the Dispatch. ]
To the Monticello Grape and Fruit
Growers Association.

Mr. Reierson, appearing in the Dispatch
Of the 2lst instant. Equally careful
perusal On your part is invited to the
following rejoinder
/. The first paragraph Of the above
named letter being personal to the I'M
dersigned, and hence having nothing to
DO with the principles involved in this
discussion, is passed by without imita-
ton, and so OF all that is merely per-
sonsl.
.. The citations from the history Of
various temperance conventions, used
as an argument to show the object Of
the workers therein, seem to the under
signed entirely useless. 1t is declared
without any concealment that the OBJ
ject Of these organizations Is to pro-
mote the practice Of total abstinence
from beverages that intoxicate. Their
doctrines have been as plainly por-
trsyed as language can accomplish
plainness. Where is the man that ever
denied that the desire Of these men was
to get pledges Of total abstinence? The
undersigned would just here urge upon
your attention. gentlemen, the wisdom
Of such resolute resistance to the tempt
ing wine-cup. The man who never
takes bis first drink will never become
drunkard; but you know, gentle
men. that hundreds at first scorning toe
very name Of drunkard have proceeded
from a single glass TO the inebriate 5
doom, Safety is in resolute abstinence
from tamperirg with the temper.
"Let him that thnketh he standeth
take heed lest he fall"
3. The radical difference between
this object Of certain associations and
what are called coerciye measures or
coerciye total abstinence is so plain
that the wonder is that any writer
should fall into the absurdity Of sup
posing their identity. A fruit-grow-
ing association has a certain creed as
TO The employ ment Of capital. When
a member invests his money according
TO that creed and engages in growing
peaches instead OF wheat. is he the
victim Of tyranny Is his personal
liberty unfairly dealt with because he
is expected to comply with his con-
tracts One of the most alarming
dangers TO truly valuable personal
liberty is that which would sap the very
foundations OF all national as well as per-
sonal safety by cultivatiDg disregard Of
obligation and a neglect Of promises
implied or expressed. A lawless cOun-
try is no place Of safety for personal
liberty. The fact then that law is
asked for to restrain the traffic in ar
dent spirits, so far from being an act in
terfGing with any valuable personal
liberty, is only an act calling for the at
tcntion Of the properly constituted
authority the will Of the voting popu-
lation) TO he given to the danger from
that traffic and to the application Of the
proper remedy in the exercise Of the
guaranteed liberty Of voting according
to conscientious convictions Of pub
lie good. Do we know Of any
liberty desired by a good citizen
10 place bis selfish gains above the good
Of the majority Of his fellow citizens:
Tie law is then for pTotection-nOt for
injury to genuine liberty. Suppose a
community Of twenty families, snd IT,
teen Of those families regard the traffic
as totally Injurious and deprecate its
presence; is airy injustice done to the
i've by is prohibition when they agreed
to abide by laws made by this mode
Is it not plain that liberty would be to-
tally destroyed by forcing the fifteen to
have what they regard a great evil 10
their children Just because one vender
desired to engage IN trade to meet the
Appetites of the 1--WE? Would not wis
dom and justice say to the five. You
must not injure fifteen TO meet the mis-
taken tastes Of five: fyou wish drink
for yourselves you must procure It with
out irjuring the children Of the fifteen
and without thus defeating the hopes Of
he community. We DO not make
law that will lpfict penalty upon you
for drinking, provided in procuring your
beverage you institute Sothing that 10
Jures US and our children. When you es-
tablish saloon you DO establish some
thing that Injuries our children, and
therefore we adopt the law. Your con-
sequent sEppOsltion Of inconvenience
is not our fault. We believe drink in
iures you, but you are willing to risk
tie injury, and you claim personal
liberty 20 run the risk. We cannot IN
terfeIe with that except by earnest per-
suas.on; we would reason with you for
your own good. but when you insist on
different view for yourself We must
prohibit your dragging our children
INTO the tempter's snare. Cannot We
say, " Friends, We do you no wrong.
Did you not agree 10 this arbitration by
your remaining in our community
4. For q refutation Of the views rela-
tive TO wine the undersigned would
modestly call attention TO his letter il
the Dispatch Of the 2lst headed The
Example Of France" &c.
5. TIE argument supposed by Mr..
+. to be against the views of total a5-
stainers, drawn from the bloody his
tory Of The Crusades and the Spanish
lnquisition, is as remarkable as j. is I'M
satisfactory to the logician. IL is about
as follows Abstainers say that mode
rate drinking is dangerous therefore,
to be consistent. they must ignore reli-
gion, as religion produced the Crusades.
The writer very justly makes a distinc-
ticn between the use and abuse Of ma
lures gins; but then he is far from
satisfactory in the implication that na-
ture designs alcohol for the human
stomach in its healthy state.
All experience is positively to
the contrary. The abuse Of alcoholic
drink is in the fact Of subjsciing The
alimentary canal TO the burden of its
presence at all except 70 counteract
disease-as other poiSons are used. The
presence Of religion, however, in the
heart of man is an absolute prereqai-
site TO eternal happiness. No such
thing can DO said as to the article
above named. lie would then make