Democratic Northwest. [volume] (Napoleon, Ohio) 1869-1894, 1889-05-09
THOUGHTS ON PRoHIBrTIoN.
Its Fallacy and sophistry Exposed
T0.fholfe ct.nd.rd1

~ ohAoCy anu DoBLAs1EI 11pO1las
ToAtholie Standard
Various circumstances combine to
confuse the public mind on the subject.
There is first a profound conviction
and that conviction is true one-that
intemperance is Q crying evil and the
prolific source Of other evils, and of IN
deserihable wretehedness and misery,
not only TO the persons themselves who
are Incorporate, but also to many
others who are in different ways con-
nected with them.
Starting from this undeniable fact,
the advocates of Prohibition assume
first that it is right to employ any
means whatever which will eradicate
the evil, and, secondly, that the most
efectual If not the only means Is that
of Prohibition. a
There is reason to believe that many
persons will be deluded by these argu-
ments into voting for Prohibition
There is danger, too, that another very
large class of persons will be induced to
vote for Prohibition, contrary to their
better judgment, from the fear that II
they vote against it they will be re-
garded as favoring intemperance or as
llDleUlpeTdle tilcfDS6lN6S.
But these alleged reasons are sophisti-
cal and fallacious.
/. In the first place it is not morally
right to use any means whatever to ac-
complish purpose, however good and
praiseworthy that purpose may be in
itself. This proposition is so plainly
true that no argument is needed to
prove it.
2. In the second place it is always
an error to argue that because the abuse
of a thing is wrong the use of it must
be abstained from or should be prohib:
tied. b.
8. In the third place, it is not, as the
PrOhibitionists constantly assert, 6
demonstrated fact that prohibition il
the only or the most effectual means
for either diminishing or eradicatine
intempefance.
4. In the fourth place, there are goot
reasons, based both on moral principles
and on the ground of experience, fol
believing that the prohibition of thu
use of liquor (by liquor we mean al
liquids that can intOxicate, whethe
distilled or fermented) is not only no
the most efectual means for destroying
intemperance, but also that its attempt
ed enforcement by law has always beer
followed and always will be followed
by grave consequences of a perniciou
character.
5. The statistics on this subject pub
lished by the ProhibitiOnists are de
lusive. 1t is true that Figures cam
lie.p But it is also true that figures cal
be so arranged as to produce false i'm
pressions, and nothing ismore common
than such an arrangement OF them.
6. An insuperable objection to Pro
hibition is furnished by the fact tina
legal prohibition of that of which tn
use is not wrong deprives the individu
al of the exercise, as regards the pro
hibited subject, of the highest endow
} ment of his nature his intelligen
volitiOn, or free will.
} 1t is the free will ofman which make
him morally responsible agent. De
prive him of free will and his action
have no more moral character than tn
movements of block of wood. God s
highly estimates the gift of free will
with which he has endowed man, tina
He will not deprive man of it, not eve
to save him from He'll or to secure t
! him Heaven.
Z. AS a necessary consequence {
this last mentioned truth, though ten
perance is one ofthe cardinal Christia
virtues, yet its exercise is meritoriou
only when it is. voluntary, and whe
abstention is practiced from the rigf
, motive.
r 8. AS logical result of the foregc
/ ing truths, the prohibiting of all PEI
r sons from using liquor because man
, persons abuse it, deprives those person
9 who do not abuse liquor of the exercis
8 of their free will on the subject. It
g therefore grave moral wrong done t
| them, and an act of real injustice an
Y tyranny.
t Each of these irrefutable proposition
8 is capable of enlarged explication an
s proof. But our present purpose
s merely to state them, and they seem
S us SO plainly and SO certainly true, tn;
y simple statement of them ought to |
sufficient to convince of their trut
every intelligent person who will tai
the trouble to thoughtfully consid
them.
r The widest guesses have been mac
9 in Paris as to the lange of vision fro
> the Eiffel tower. The real limit Is fo
h ty miles, which takes in Fontaineblea
Y Nantes and Pontoise, and even tn
!. area can only be viewed in exceptiona
4 lv clear Waathar