The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-05-14
go
REPLY TO JOHN F. SMITH.

REPlY iU JuhN +. Smith.
EDITOR BULLETIN have long
regarded Mr.. John f. Smith as the
Demosthenes of Honolulu. The
versatility of his pen and his sparkl-
ing brain are ever on the war path.
His letter headed Consistency in
your weekly edition of the 9TH
proves that he is much worried over
the prohibition question, and the
subject, being one of wide range,
affords Mr.. Smith a good oppor-
tunity to display the swing of his
literary fail, but in this instance it
swings somewhat wide of the mark,
Notwithstanding that the subject of
attack is varied and big enough.
After using up about column of
type in denouncing, lecturing and
trying to scare prohibitionists gen.
orally, to his hearts content, he
comes to the word argument.
Mr.. Editor, permit me right here
to challenge any and all arguments
of these destructionists. Mr.. Smith
is careful not to enter into an
analysis of what the prohibitionists
would destroy as this would necessi-
tate argument. Mr.. Smith contents
himself with calling the arguments
of his opponents "far fetched, fana-
tical and contradictory" This is
very convenient, no doubt, to Mr..
Smith, but it is not controversy nor
argument, it is simply ''no case
abuse the other side"
In an important controversy we
we want evidence. Mr.. Smith might
have brought forward the testi-
mony of eminent medical men as
to the hygienic value of alcoholic
liquids to sustain physical stamina.
He might have introduced the
testimony of life insurance actuaries
in fovor of moderate alcoholic drink
ing as conducive to longevity, also
the testimony of athletes to prove
how alcohol helps to develop muscle.
He might have been expected to
show that the liquor traffic is a great
conservator of the economic forces
of life, and promoter of moral and
intellectual culture.
Prohibitionists claim that "sparkl-
ing wine" equally with "gin sling''
and the!hundred other slings, cock
tails and smashes of the gin mill,
are worse than valueless as food or
drink, that they are taken simply to
produce degrees of drunk, politely
called elevation" "three sheets in
the wind,' and other barometric
readings up to "dead drunk" that
the desire to indulge in or be Every
fond" Of it is the result of per-
verted appetite opposed to all natu-
raj law.
Smith rushes where angels fear to
tread, and the regions of dogmatic
theology are swept of cobwebs in
order to demolish any lurking seed
of prohibition error. But why soar
, so high, Mr.. Smith when the drink
question is of the earth, earthly. 1t
is matter of fact, practical, every
. day, value received question, for
dollars and cents. Men who boast
that they take no stock in theology
! are in the ranks of ultra prohibitions
lists. 1t is eminently utilitarian
question of what is it worth?
You may spend all your wealth OF
rhetoric in weaving tinsel gauze
drapery for your idol Sparkling
wine," but breath lays it bare
What is it worth ?"
B1r. Smiths reasoning on tempta'
ton is so unique that / must qnote
n sample. After admitting that the
> absence of temptation may save Q
drunkard, he says, "What merit is
there in virtue which accrues to 9
man who is merely temperate be-
cause he cannot obtain wine. TIC
which say we don't think of OF
care for the merit, but the man. He
: recognises merit in man who risks
his life to save others, or one who
: helps to smooth the rough passage
of life for others, but we see no
merit in the foolhardy daring of the
man who boasts that he can walk to
the edge of a precipice and poise
himself on one leg over an abyss into
which he knows many of his COM
panions have fallen headlong.
Every gin mill is a yawning hell
= and every man who frequents then
for the purpose of drinking is il
danger, and it is because 1 know il
from lifelong experience at the
shady side of 80 that l am pro-
: hibitionist. If Mr.. Smith wants tt