The Maryville times. (Maryville, Tenn.) 1884-1944, 1890-04-02

~ prohibition laws" Why, we
thought this county was in Tonnes
zee, which allows any one in any
county to obtain a license to sell
liquor if more than four miles dis
tant from All Incorporated school
Can it be Mr.. L. did not know this?
And not only that, but a man can
take out druggists license in any
place, school or no school. And
now to say prohibition laws have
driven liquor out of Blount county
is to say what is not true. The
most powerful prohibition law is
public sentiment, and it is the NOR
al sentiment of our people aided by
our laws that has banished the rum
traffi . from this county. The high
license law of Tennessee keeps
druggists in many places from SELL
ing liquors on prescription: if We
had a low tax they would sell.
1t makes no difference what any
man may say, we know that high
license works for our benefit.
Now, Mr.. Editor, the question we
raise is not what we wish; not
what the State ought to do; not
what would be the result if all
would vote for prohibition; the
point we now push to the front is
simply this: are license laws in
their nature wicked and sinful, and
as was said in your paper a few
weeks ago "the most Ubiquitous
ever found on the statute bO0kw
Now, II Mr.. Henry wishes to
stick to something, let him march
right up face to face with what ]
discuss. I affirm that license laws
are not in their nature sinful. They
originated in the pure patriotic
purpose to stay the ravages of rum
and did it too. No one supposes
that they are final in reforming go
ciety, but they are infinitely better
than free rum.
License laws not being sinful in
their nature, to reason IA "The
Voice" has taught fits readers to
do, by comparing them to laws Ii.
censing one of the greatest iniqui.
ties known-namely, adultery, is
one of the strangest instances Of
false reasoning ever displayed in
carrying on a moral reform. THAI
which Is sinful and wicked in itself
as we'll as in every form it may as
sumo, as adultery is, is not at al
like a license liquor law which il
not only, not sinful in itself, but ha
been and now is a prohibition of {
great evil, and hence in its origil
was a benevolent measure. An,
let it be observed, in their origin
license laws were not passed t
sanction evil but to prohibit it.
In order to settle some points
will state some propositions whic
l would like Mr.. Henry to affirm Q
deny. I affirm that making intox
cants or selling them, or using ther
as a beverage is not in itself sinfu
|but may be perfectly justifable.
I affirm that license laws for sci
ing intoxicants are in their natur
restrictive and prOhibitive all
hence such laws are not in the
nature sinful.
I affirm that no constitutional {
statutory prohibition laws ever di
or ever can remove the curses ,
the liquor saloons.
I affirm that in extirpating mor'
evils the same kind of laws wi
not be always adapted to differer
ages, nor to different societies 1
the same age.
| I affirm that absolute legal pr
hibition Of moral evils Is sometim,
impossible, and hence the best wa
is to regulate them.
In my last article I submitted
question for certain prohibitions
answer. If license laws are sinf,
and wicked in their nature as yo
affirm, then what will you say
this? Would you have Tennessee
repeal It's present liquor licens
laws and have no law at all regul,
ting their sale ? or would you pr,
fer to retain our present laws an
move forward to something highe
and better?
i You have got to say "repeal tn
license laws" even If we cam,
get anything better, If as you clail
such laws are in their nature sinfl
like adultery; the sooner such Law
u are wiped out the better.
The only ground you can take
ave ought to have free rum unit
we can get a law which will nos