Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1886-01-15
The CASE ARGUED.

An OLD and EEuch discussed Subject
Handled in a New Way by u ReIis.
iOu& peri0dicai
From che American Literary Churchman
what 90 we mean by PROHIBITION, and
SHY Go we Affirm that we believe, if Sc
cureu, 1T would do lncaicuIable harm +?
We understand prohibition to mean the
enactment OF laws, which, if duly exc
cuteu, wond absolutely prevent the
manufacture, importation, sale or pur
chase OF any Intoxicating drinks 1t
woaid not explicitly enforce total abstl-
pehce, because tins would be unneces-
su!J But IL would render any ythlng but
tot"i abstinence physically impossible
and Dy single operation of law would
leVoIuuoniGo the usages of society, us
ages which prevail not only in tie
United States. but throughout almost
the whole clylhzed world. 1t would an
nlhllate an enormous industry in which
Hundreds OF mliilons of dollars have
been invested, and IN which
working classes are earning wages.
and which has been carried on with the
express sanction OF the laws, and which
hpc SOhtiiputEN an AlulUSt fabulous
amount OF money 10 the national treas
ury-and 1t would do this without q
single cent of compensation, and
for the reauiustment of the
capital and labor which it would destroy
or dlsplace. Nor Is 1t pretended that
this vast revolution is demanded by any
urgent public feeling. The majority has
n
Moreover, the very people for whose
benefit this revolutionary Legislation is
intended are precisely the people who
DO not want 1t; and the people who
really want it are the people who can
take it for themselves without the
change of single staSute-who, in fact,
are taking it already. Surely this is
marvellous proposal to be made to the
citizens of tree country, q country
which assumes to have secured for all
its citizens the utmost possible amount
of individual liberty compatible with
the existence and permanence of civ.
Ilized society.
Now 1t may safely be affirmed that
any proposal distantly resembling this
would have been rejected as monstrous
and absurd II it had not been supported
by moral, religious, and, in word,
wholly extraneous arguments, 1t is
Political movement justified by reasons
which have, directly, nothing to do with
politics. In ancient society the
state was the unit, of which individuals
were fractions; in modern Rociety indIv-
1duals are the unit, of which the state
ic the aggregate. In ancient society
liberty had to be claimed, and the bur
den oil proof rested on The man who
claimed to be free; in modern society
liberty is assumed as the moral condi-
ton and inalienable right of every
human being, and the burden of proof
rests upon him who would presume to
retain liberty. In both cases it was an d
is conceded that individual liberty must
be restrained; but IN the former case it
was restrained for the good of somebody
else; IN the latter 1t is 1estrainedfor the
good OF tie individual who forms civil
1zed society. Hence as an immediate
corollary, or rather first principle, each
individual is allowed to be the best
Judge OF his own interests and desires:
and excepting those who are really m
capable OF forming judgement-such
as lunatlcs or mlDOrs-he is allowed to
pursue his own interests and satisfy his
own desires IN his own way, even though
other people think him foolish and
impractical. This ia the most charac-
terlstic difference between ancient and
modern society. = Z = Now it is
plain enough that all legislation must be
based on some principle, each law must
be particular case of that princlple,
the consequence of some primary theory
or admission. The question, therefore,
presents itself, on what principle-on
what theory of government-does the
proposed prohibition rest? And the
answer is perfectly obvious; it rests on
the paternal theory, on that very theory
which has been repudiated by all pro-
gressive nations, theory which can
never result in anything but despotism
or communism. Prohibition is distinctly
communistic, and communistic on the.
very worst side, and in the worst possI-
BILE degree. a community of goods; a
universal state landlord; state owner
ship of all the capital, machinery and
instruments of labor-these are
the proposals of modern socialists.
They are utterlrly revolutionary.
They all involve the total de-
struction of the existing order of society,
moral and economic. But the very
worst form OF socialism is government
control of our private opinions and per-
sonal habits.* This is the one
object of the prohibitiOnists. 1t is there
fore, wholly incompatible with all
modern theories of government. It Is
socialism. 1t is the invoking of the
physical force OF the atate to control the