Sturgis advertiser. (Sturgis, Dakota [S.D.]) 1887-1???, 1891-05-14
ENFORCED ABSTINENCE.
The Theory Of Prohibition
Mastery Analysis Of The Reasons For and
Against The Idea.
BY sanford 81. Cobb in The PRINCETON Re-
view.

y 1900 -
either existing or proposed and second,
are logically quite distinct, and in some
respects are antagonistic. Yet in ordi-
nary discussion, at the hands OF both
friends and foes, they are constantly
confused. One rarely hears or reads an
argument against prohibition which
keeps clearly in view the distintion be-
tween civil statute and q precept of
morals. One rarely hears or reads an ar
gument in its favor which does not con-
fessedly draw its strongest plea from
moral considerations. Prohibition comes
into religious assemblies and church
courts, demanding that it receive their
sanction and furtherance, as thing of
almost religious obligation; in some
cases even seeking ecclesiastical indorse-
ment for political party having Prohi-
bltion as it's watchword. In some quar-
tiers, also, it is broadly charged that ev-
cry pulpit which fails to champion Pro-
hibition is dereiiet. This state of things
shows most lamentable confusion of
| ideas, resulting in much illogical and
| unchristian augmentation.
The only justifying ground for pro-
hibitory law, if found at all, must be
found in the principles, not of morality,
but of political economy, or, to use
wider phrase, in the requirements of
| public policy. The scope of public policy
| Is wide. Tt considers what is necessary
| or desirable for the community at large,
| what best subserves the interests of the
| State, what will provide for its revenues,
| develop it's resources and protect il from
various dangers. Here is the ground of
| power to tax for support of the State and
| for public improvements; to establish
| common schools; to levy duties on I'M
| ports; to declare quarantine ; to kill dis
| eased cattle; to regulate the sale of dam
| gerous articles, such as gunpowder and
| poisons. Indeed. public policy, the right
| of the State, may go so far in its demands
as to stake the body" of the citizen, en-
listing him for war, or even drafting him
for war, or even drafting him by force, if
he himself is unwilling to fight his coun-
try's battles.
| Now. it is solely in the exercise of the
right which such power implies, and fer
! reasons of external public policy, that
| the State has in the past interfered, or
can ever be asked to interfere, with the
| liquor traffic, in all degrees of such inter-
ference, from the lowest form of license
to the most iron-clad Prohibition. The
confessed object ofall such legislation is
the lessening, or the entire suppression,
of the evil suffered by society in conse-
| uuence of that traffic. In the presence of
| such law, if any citizen claims the per-
sonal right to sell liquor without a
license, or if, as against Prohibition, the
citizen claims the personal right to drink
| liquor within the bounds of moderation
and hence the right to buy or make
both OF which claims found themselves
! on the personal liberty of the CITIZEN
the State replies, in effect: "Whatever
your right may be in itself, or would be
in, case others were not damaged by it's
exercise, yet you and your right do not
stand alone. All rights must exist to-
gether in harmony, and when discord
arises there must enSue mutual limita-
ton. In the application of this principle,
the public good requires that the sale of
liquor shall be restricted or suppressed,
I your individual rights to the contrary
Notwithstanding" So saying, the an
swer of the State is complete,and, if facts
shall warrant, its position unassailable.
Thus far it is clear that the essential
question is solely one of public good.
The morality of the question is accident
! al. Of course, modern society universal
ly recognizes, however it may fail at
times in applying the broad principle,
that open immo1 ality is adverse to the
| public good. Society is also, happily, be-
| ginning to apprehend that the political
L
of social prosperity, permit a large adj
mixture of moral motives in its methods
and precepts. And yet, after all, the
liquor laws have not been nor could they
be enacted because the use or abuse of
liquor is immoral, but because the abuse
of it is injurious to society. If such
abuse did not threaten the public peace,
and create enormous burdens of taxation
for the support of the courts, prisons, re-
formatories, and asylums; If it were not
the fruitful mother of crimes if the
immortality of this abuse were unattend-
ed by any material, physical, or social ILL
consequences, to the leopardizing of the
public good, there would be no ground
for interference by the State.
Its laws against various indecencies
and moral evils are made and enforced
not for the reason that such things are
| wicked, but because moral corruption
entails social damage. To sell or drink
whisky might be as wicked as the un-
pardonable sin, but If no social evil arose
therefrom the civil law would issue nc
|, warrant against it. Tt is. then, the fact
that social damage attends the abuse oil
LIQUOR, that crime and violence are null
tiplied by it, which furnishes the State
| with it's justifying reason for interior
ence. Such reasons, be it noted, would
abide and demand statutory action in
the presence of any threatened danger
though the procuring cause or instru-
ment of such danger were destitute oil
all moral quality.
Il What, then, the Prohibitionist must do
In order to sustain his appeal to civil leg
islation, is to demonstrate the gravity
and extent of the evils inflicted on soci.
ETY. by the liquor traffic; tocompute the
burden of taxation caused by it; to
count the crimes; to show the misery o
| ruined homes, the loss to society anC
mankind through the personal degrade.
ton and death of the drnnkard, and the
dangerous aliurements of the saloon, bl
which thoughtless youth are shared *
the ruin OF all the hopes which the State
, should entertain for the service of each
. citizen. He must demonstrate the prev
] alence and burden of this evil in suct
preponderance as quite to outweigh the
claims and individual rights thal oppos,
| his cause. He cam OF deny, il he keep:
within the region of facts, that while ths
, | absolute number of those who abus,
liquor to the result of drunkenness and
social damage is absolutely large. We
| relatively il is much smaller than tn
number OF those who do notso abuse il
who never are drunken and damage SO
ciety. save iii the imagination OF tina
~ argument for constructive damage, 81
!, familiar in some quarters, which de-
! nounce the moderate drinker as lh'
greatest foe to temperance and socia
!, order. Whatever may be the moral judg
. ment as to the position OF the moderat
, drinker, it will not do for the Prohibi
! ZIONIST, seeking civil legislation, to los
sight of this undeuiable disparity 9