The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-07-22
The PROHIBITION CRAZE
THE APPEAL AND THE DEMOC-
RACY WARNED
That They Must Not Defend the Per-
sOual Rights of the Citizens
Of Mississippi.
ooRREsp0NDEEoE OF TnE ArpEAL. !

VERONA, LEE County, MRS., July
81 Your editorial note on the War
r,I county election for prohibition con-
taius some doctrines which are new
and strange to tens OF thousands of,the
m s. conscientious Democrats" of
Mississippi. In what sense Is prohibit
ton "iadica and extreme measure ?"
Is ii any more radical or extreme than
quarantine regulation to keep out
some deadly, contagious disease ?
Please show how or wherein it is
radical or extreme. How does it con-
fict with Democratic principles? Does
the Democratic party, as such, favor
the manufacture and sale Of spilituous
liquorsp Is it q party principle to
license the sale of whisky, to foster
the saloon, aud then punish the
drunken criminal? Is free
whisky, or the right to
get drunk, one of the
lnslienable rights secured by the Con-
stitution? To say that whisky shall
not be sold in Warren, or any other
county OF the State, IS certainly as
Democratic ss to say that it email be
sold. We propose to settle the ques-
ton in the most Democratic way inn
aginable. And yet you say, mo con-
scientious Democrat will vo e" for thi5
mea ure. You are m stalker, Messrs.
Editors, for thousands on top of thou
sands Of them have voted for il, and
Thousands more will vote for it in the
next few weeks, and they are not going
to be read out OF the Democratic party
for it, either.
Is the privilege OF getting drunk
question Of personal liberty" to be
protected and fostered by law2 Is it
right TO do wrong at any time or under
any instances? Is law right that
licenses wrong? Say, Messrs. Editors?
In what way does prohibition affect
personal libertyP Is law prohibit
ing the sale OF spoit meat or rotting
fruit or vegetables "repressive or OPP
pressveT Why? Wherein? How ?
Let the Democrats of Mississippi
know. Don't say we are not Con
acientious." We understand you to
say, "The fIesr men are to drink
whisky or sell whisky, and the less
they are governed about selling and
drinking, the better for all concerned"
Now, Messrs. Editors, is that so ? Is that
Democratic doctrinep Then why tax
the sale of whisky at all Why arrest
and punish q man for crime committed
while drunk? Why have laws pro-
hibiting murder, arson, theft or any
thing else that men may wish to do?
You lay, "To say what man may
drink is to arrogate the power to say
what he may eat or we9r.
Is that so? MAY Democrat wear
what he pleasc4? on your wife's
silk dress and try Ong the streets
of Democratic Nj his tomorrow?
Does the law cf Tel see call on you
to wear what you tn &c, unless you
please tn weer male attire. say, Messr-.
Editors? Say yes or no. But, Messs.
Editors, the question OF licensing or
not licensing the sale of whisky in no
way Involves the personal right Of
drinking as much as you please. II is
the sale OF whisky under the sanction
OF law that we are voting upon, and
not upon the boosted PERSONAL right Of,
drinking whisky.
Now, Messrs. Editors, using your
own words ia part, "no tyranny is so
Justly oiious as that which, prompted
by" whisky, "enters a mans home"
and breaks his wife's heart and robs
his children of food and raiment aud
ends ia the murder of h s patient and
long sutiering wife, al that few
saloon keepers may get the last cent
this poor man has.
Messr5. Editors, have the wives and
children of drinkers and drunkards
no personal rights that DemoC acy is
bound to prot3ct? We have not 50
read and understood the principles OF
the Democratic party. We ave con-
scienious Democrats and conscien-
tious Prohibitionists, too, and we are
going t. carry Mississippi for prohibit
ton if it takes till doomsdsy to do it.
r a PORTER.