Sturgis advertiser. (Sturgis, Dakota [S.D.]) 1887-1???, 1891-05-14

Prohibition lis TO answer to this moral
problem, albeit the radical error made
by Prohibitionists Is inconstantly pre-
senting 1T as an answer. III it is not
meant de q moral remedy it has no more
propriety in the pulpit than discussion
of the tariff.
Al notable illustration of the point in
hand is found in the fact that the tide of
so-called temperance effort Of the present
day sets SO prevailingly toward PrOhi-
bition. The vast majority OF temperance
speeches and sermons forgetful that
Christian temperance is seif-control, and
that for sobriety the moral law of absti-
nence is found In individual liberty--in-
sists on the necessity of an enforced abb
stinence, not simply az social expe
dent but as moral requirement. Moral
suasion lis derided aud laid aside. Mora
and spiritual forces are considered of nc
value. What is demanded is q statute
and a policeman's club, to convert men
out OF hand! The church might as well
petition the Legislature to abolish sin.
s.. Once more, the valid objection lies
against this moral theory Of Prohibition
that it either goes too far or does not go
far enough. If it ID true moral precept,
it should be applied to the statement of
other moral evils than that of intemper-
ance. Society, indeed, is at perfect lib
erty to single out the liquor traffic for
either restraint or suppression, because
of its social burdens and dangers. But
alist takes it up. In his hand it is held
as corrective, not simply of social bur-
dens, but as well for moral wrong while
his more urgent argument is drawn from
the wick edness and moral consequences
of the evil he would suppress. Now-why
should he apply the remedy only to the
evil of the liquor question? The sin OF
intemperance is not the only sin growing
out of the abuse of an innocent thing, in
which multitudes go to do evil, and be-
fore which the Christian moralist some
times stands appalled,. There is, for ex-
ample, the sin of impurity--the so-called
sssocial evil" This represents a more
heinous sin than drunkenness, because
it degrades the mystery, and poisons the
fountain of life; and more threatening
evil, because the danger 1t brings is not
violence, but moral and physical pollu-
ton. Better drunken nation than one
unchaste. 1t represents also, it is great
ly to be feared, wider spread of evil.
Why not apply the moral theory of Pro-
hibition to this evil? 1t is said, "There
are laws against broJhels and adultery ?'
That is true, and SO are there laws against
drunkenness, so that to this extent the
But the Prohibitionist demands that, be-
cause intoxicants are abused by some
men to drunkenness, therefore there shall
be no intoxicants at all.
To be consistent--if this theory be cor
rect-he should also demand that, be-
cause the sexual instinct is abused by
some to the extreme of impurity, there
fore all union of sexes shall be forbid
den. This, of course, is absurd, and is
almost blasphemy against that marriage
which is "an holy ordinance of God
tel nj xyxAf
The analogy is complete, the argument,
in its moral force, irresistible. The alb
surdity and blasphemy lie with the Pro-
hibitionlst, who would foist a temporary
social expedient iuto the seat of Christian
morals and make it principle of NOR
atty binding on the conscience. For he
would do well to remem ber-as all sound
moralists and teachers must remember,
If their doctrines are to bear scrutiny
that morality is general. Its principles
are broad, and of equal application to all
the subjects of its administration. If,
for the sake of destroying one great
moral evil, the result of agigantic abuse,
we adont as a moral measure the ADOLF
ton of its innocent instrument, then the
logic of truth and moral consistency
compel us to apply the same rule of judg-
ment and the same principle of prohibi-
ton to every moral evil that arises from
the misuse of an innocent instrument.
From this dilemma the Prohibitionist
has no escape save in the assertion that
the use of all intoxicants is sinful, an as
sertion which, though made by some
temperance advocates, is worthy only of
the contempt deserved by any wretched
| makeshift.
But this is not the whole Of it. If the
Prohibitionlst may appeal to the State
for a prohibitory enactment against
| liquor, on the ground of morals if his
| argument for such action is, as generally
| we find it, drawn from the alleged sim
| fulness of the use or abuse of liquor, and
! not from the ioutward ills which society
suffers from its abuse; then he admits a
| principle which carried to it's logical re-
| ligious liberty. III 1T is right in this case,
| it is right in any case to call upon the
| strong arm of the civil law to enforce a
| special view of morals or particular
1 tenet of religion. For such reasons is ii
| objected that this moral theory of Prohi-
bitlon either goes too far or does not go
| far enough. If the principle is true, then
should 1t sweep the fields of morals and
religion. liz the principle is false, then is
| it only a delusion and snare.
The sum of it, then, is this, that as q
| remedy for the moral evil of lntemper-
ance, Prohibition is .wanting in the first
1 principles of true morality. Its advocacy
| on moral and religious grounds is PERM,
cious to the last degree, oppressive to the
conscience, restrictive of true liberty Of
mind sdishonorable to the Christian ides
1 of manhood, and discreditable to church
that can write it's name upon her ban
/ ners. Prohibition is, or must be, a civil
measure, sustained by civil reasons, and
looking to social ends. Notwithstanding
i its involvement in and suggestion by
social conditions which display immoral
aspects, it yet stands as a civil measure
on the same level as the tariff law, and
| is as much out of place in the pulpit and
i church courts as discussion OF the ful
trade would be. Such exclusion, oil
course, does not bar out the discussion OF
intemperance, or of all moral means fol
its removal. Intemperance isa sin loudly
demanding the animadversionS OF ths
church and her consecrated efforts fol
its reduction, in which she would have
been more successful than she has bl
for those divisiye counsels which have
thrust so many obstacles in her path.
All this can be said-nay, has been
said-with the deepest consciousnessth tina
the evil which Prohibition seeks to sup.
4 press is enormous. No words can de-
scribe its baseness, its wretchedness, its
tears and ruin. Nor is it to be wondered
3 at that the sometime desperation born oil
a view of such evil should dispose one tx
catch at any instrument which holds on
the promise of relief, orthat every posi-
BILE argument should be employed tx
further its bene6cent design. We viii
not always critieise too closely the skif
which carries us over the rushing tide
- T. 49, 4. ks.~Nw -x~I