The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1889-09-27

CONGREGATIONAL rgs@ziiasTGoA.
We have read a great many edl-
%torlals favorable to prohibition in our
Dakota exchanges during the past
two months, together with a consid-
cradle number of reported speeches
of prohibition speakers. but we have
yet to lind one single argument add
vanced showing or attempting TO
show wherein constitutional prohibi-
ton is preferable to prohibition by
Legislative enactment. ltisverv COM
mon for some editor to grind out -
long article IN temperance and i'm
agiue he Is writing a strong prollib;-
ton article, or 10 take up valuable
space IN attempting to prove that pro.
hibition prohibits under the SUPPOSE
tom that that Is conclusive proof OF
the necessity Of constitutional prohi-
bition. This $ be accounted for
only on the snpposition that no req
sonable argument can he advanced in
favor of constitutional prohibition.
Much a be said against it however,
and nothing can be said or written
that places the matter in a clearer
light than the following from the
Christian Register, published upon
the eve of the election that resulted
so d~isastrously to a constitutional pro
hibition amendment Massachusetts
Says the Register:
We agree with these workers for pro
hibition concerning the terrible evils o
intemperanee. We are heart and kanc
in working with them; heart and hant
for its suppression. The difference be
tween US in this matter is mainly Il differ
ence of method. The method proposct
by the advocates of the constitutions
amendment does not commend itself II
our judgment as wise or expedient. |
there are reasons why we do not care t.
aggressively oppose the measure ther
are also reasons why we cannot advocat
it
We concede that the use of aleoholi
beverages works evil. We also favo,
total abstinence as o safeguart
of temperance. We likewise hold tina
society may righteously forbid any Gus
tom which proves to be a social ev!.
Nevertheless, frraly % we insist or Ties
facts and principles, they do not amour
to a final or sufficient argument for u,
constitutional amendment.
Experience has shown that laws d
not execute themselves, whether staff
tory or constitutional. A law can go |
sleep just us easily in the constitution .
on the statute book In the battle wit
intemperanco it is not worth while t
establish paper ~blockades. Nor have W
any right to leave results wholly wit
God, when results arc very clearly in OF
own hands If temperance man b,
lieves that prohibition means Gree rum
we should say that is good reason VIII
he should vote against it.
This is not q moral question alone;
is one of pablo expediency, aud prep
weight must be allowed 10 the opinion
of lawyers who think that the constit,
tion is to be an assemhlage OF well Sc
tied and uncontroverted principles, AT
not q code of laws or TO ernbedy. as Pr
fcssar Thayer has said, the opinions of
momentary majority upon I'm entire
unsettled, question.
We are told that the constitution
amendment f%orhidding the manufaotn
: and sale of intoxicating beverages is
be considered precisely like the amen
/, w IN W 49, "a
States forbiddlng slavery. but the ditfe
enec in the present altitude of the d
oussion is immense. The amendment
. the constitution of the United States W
not adopted until slavery had been abe
isbed. 1t was the record OF the final w
t. dict of the people or that subject.
secures in the constitution forcvarto o
!, children the fruit of that struggle. DO
the policy of prohibition stand in al
such relation? II is still an experiment
There arc many thousandsin Massacb
sets who are temperance men. but Il
total abstainerS. Is il Wise Ia the prose
/ stage OF experiment to iusert in she 60
! stitution a mandate which ferhids all b
| one method etdealing with the questio
!. Is not the present way of dealing wi
= 1t through local option, which offers
choice of methods, a fairer and q wis
way? IT a belief in total abstinen
should logically precede belief in pr
hibition why not first seek to conve
the community to total abs.inene
When this is achieved prohibition "
not he necessary.
But it is said that to put the amer
ment into the constitution viii make
harder to change the law. This is
strong reason agaiusti.. Tbeiaw.Ea,es
of the people ought not TO be fettered
dealing with the practical question
banaaerae.sn Realization. IF it is thoua
eaht8 m hgatn Try frefiisiiian in {
rs eel1 EHt3rts& iY gis'a}i
action.
The man wae votes against the amer
mead does not vote against intenp'
ance. He votes agains. thai method
dealing with it,er votes ngaingt the {