Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-06-14
Communicated
REASONS WORTH READING.
JAMES ID. HANCOCK, ESQ.,, ON THE
PROHIBITION QUESTION.
The Well.Kuown Lawyer Tells Why He is
Opposed to the Amendment Succinctly
and ForcibIy-Ir is Blow nt Free Gov
erument,

0luonlStS, and In TACT is unoerStooo TO lean
somewhat toward the cold water cause, has
been fair enough to print an interesting
communication regarding the amendment
issue from the pen of James d. Hancock,
ESQ.,, leading counsel for the Allegheny
Valley Railroad and one of the foremost
LAWYERS of Northwestern Pennsylvania.
Mr. Hancock's remarks are pertinent ana
timely.
BUFFALO, May %, 1889.
j. S. McGarry, ESQ.,, Chairman:
DEAR SIR-In reply to your request that
1 should give the reasons why am opposed
to the prohibitory amendment to be sub
mitted to the people of Pennsylvania in
June next, would say:
First-I am opposed to the amendment
because it violates the principle which is at
the basis of all free government, which is
that the citizen shall have full liberty to
eat, drink and act as he pleases, subject to
such limitations as are necessary tor the
maintenance and good order OF society.
This principle, subject to these limitations,
has been recognized and approved by such
statesmen and philosophers as Thomas JEFF
ferson, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer
and other distinguished authors, who have
investigated the true foundation and limita-
tions of government. That prohibitory
law comes within neither the principal nor
even a slight consideration of the facts. By
no code of morality of which have heard is
it either sin or crime to take drink of
liquor, either for medicine or as a beverage;
and if it is not a crime to take drink of
liquor it is clearly not a crime to sell or
manufacture it. Intemperance is always a
sin, and in every civilized community the
disorders arising from intemperance are
treated as crimes, and subject the business
and conduct of the people to such regula-
ton as will tend to prevent disorder and
crime, while at the same time within the
limits of temperance complete liberty of ac-
ton is allowed. 1t is the true business of
the law in the traffic in liquors as in every
other business to prevent the abuse and not
the use thereof. Prohibition goes much
farther than this. 1t takes away from each
individual his natural right, and at the
same time Furnishes the vast majority of
those who use liquors in some form or other
for the sins of the small minority who abuse
them. The administration of Justice is the
great function of government, whether such
government be autocratic in form, or repre-
sentative and dependent upon the suffrages
of the people. While therefore an indivld
ual may frequently deny himself to benefit
his fellow, he has no just right as a govern
mental factor to compel his Government 10
vent the crimes of the guilty.
Second-I am opposed to the prohibitory
law because, from the nature of things, do
not think it could be enforced.
1t is common to hear advocates of the
amendment of certain class declare that
after the amendment has been adopted they
expect to use liquor as freely as heretofore,
but it NAV save others from ruin who are
now abusing or are hereafter likely to abuse
their present liberty. If the advocates of
the amendment do not themselves expect to
observe it, what warrant is there to conclude
that others may not equally eyade the law?
Has not experience, wherever similar laws
have been tried, shown that they were
evaded by parties who felt either the neces-
sity or desire?
The administration of this law will rest
finally with the people of the different To-
ealities throughout the State. The great
majority of the people in all the large cities
are opposed to the amendment and will elect
the officers who are to administer the law,
and such as will on their action under
the same reflect the sentiments of their con-
stituents. The effect will be that in some
parts of the State attempts will scarcely be
made to enforce the law, while in the other
parts it will be evaded to a greater or less
extent by devices that are more or less dark.
tiles and States?
Third am opposed to the amendment
because its consequences will be thoroughly
dishonest.
1t is estimated that the amount of capital
invested in breweries, distilleries and other
property connected with the traffic in Penn
sylvania amounts to the enormous sum of
SS4, ,000,00 While do not believe that
the adoption of the amendment will stop
the use of liquor, it will without doubt de-
stroy the greater part of this capital which
during the last 150 years has been built up
under the protection of the laws of the
State. When one man takes away or de-
stroys the property of another, outraged law
requires that he shall restore it or its value,
Under any honest code is there any better
reason why the State should deliberately
destroy property than would apply to an In
dividusl? We hear daily appeals to voters
10 place themselves on the moral side of this
question. Would it not be we'll for voters
to consider also which is the honest side?
To me it seems a most discouraging feature
of the times, that in the midst of all the dis
cussions upon this momentous question.
political honesty has been so entirely for
gotten that those who are constantly de-
manding moral support have failed to
mention that they propose to destroy with
out compensation the value of property
worth many millions of dollars.
For these reasons intend to vote against
the amendment, and for these reasons like
wise 1 think other conscientious men should
vote against it. Nor, upon a question of
such immense Importance and fraught with
such momentous consequences, do 1 think
that because the chairman of one party has
been guilty of corrupt and tricky practices,
the spiteful fat of the chairman of the other
party will absolve the honest citizen, regard
less of party, from the obligation of voting
upon the question in accordance with what
he conceives to be his duty.
Yours truly JAMES ID. HANCoCK