Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1889-06-08

From the Christian Register.
We agree with these workers lfor prohibition
concerning the terrible evils Of ntcmpCrancr
We are heart aud hand in working with them
for It's suppression. The difference between US
IN this matter is mainly n difference of method
The method proposed by the advocates of the
constitutional amendment docs not commend
itself 10 our Judgment us wise or cNpcdicnt. n
there are reasons why We do not care aEgrcs-
SlNcly to oppose the measure, there are also
reasons why we can not advocate II.
We conCCdC that the use OF alcoholic beverages
work eNti. We also favor with him total
abstinence rs n safeguard OF temperance. We
likewise hold that society may rightcouslv for
hid any custom which proves la hcu social evil
Nevertheless, hrnly ~ wc insist on these facts
and principles, they do not amount to u final or
suiilcient argument for the constitutional
amendment
Experience has shown that laws do not exc
cute themselves, whether statutory or ConstItu-
uonal. \ iawcan go to sleep In the constitution
lust as easily ~ ON the statute book In the
battle with intompcruncc II u not worth while
to establish paper hlockadcS. Nor have We any
right 10 leave results wholly with God when
results are very clearly in our own hands. IL "A
temperance man believes that prohibition
means "irec rum we should say that j. good
reason why he should vote against IT,
This Is not alone moral question II is one
OF public cNpcdicncy, and proper weight must
ne allowed 10 the opinions OF lawyers who think
that IA, constitution Is To he an Assem- blRgc of
wen settled and uucontrovCrtCd principles, and
not code Of laws, or, as Professor ThaNer has
SAID, 10 cmbody tho opinion uf a momcntary
majority upon an entirely unsettled question"
We are tod that the constitutional amCur-
ment forhdding the manufacture and ,nIr nT
intoxicating beverages is to be regarded pr,.
clsclN like the amendment TO the constitution
oi the United States furhidding slavery but
the difference IN the present attitude of the dis
cuSslon II immense. The amendment to the
constitution OF the United States was NOT
adopted until slavery had been abolished IL
was the record OF the fnal verdict OF the peoplc
on that subject. II secures in the constitution
forever 10 our children the fruit Of that
struggle. Does the policy of prohibition stand
In amy such realne Ii is stll an experiment.
There are many thousands In Massachusetts
who are temperance men, but not total alb
staincrs. l. IL wise in the present stage of ex-
pertinent 10 insert in the constitution man
date which forbids all but one method OF deal
ing with the question: j. not the present way
OF dealing with II through local option which
oilers choice OF methods, a wiScs aud Gairor
way If a belief In total abstinence should
logically prooede a belief in prohibition, why
not seek to convert the community first to total
ahsunenceF When this was achieved, prohi-
billion would be unnecessary.
nut IL u SAID That 10 put the amendment in
the constitution will make IL harder 10 change
| the law. This is strong reason against II
me "w-ihakers Of tie people ought not 10 be
iettsren In dealing with the practical question
! of Temperance legislation. II Il is thought
desirable 10 try prohibition again iIi the entire
state, II can be tried by legislative action.
The man who votes against the amendment
does not vote against intemperence. lie votes
against method Of dealing with IL or vote.
against theexpedieney OF applying that method
at the present time.