The record-union., 1893-07-29
PRINCIPLE AND METHOD.
A PrOhibitionist Whose Eyes Are
Opening.
An Effort to Have the Enemies of the
Saloon Take United
Action.

Inc following paper was read at the
Worlds Fair Temperance Congress at
Chicago recently, and reused much COM
ment. 1t is from the pen of Rev. Herrick
Johnson, D. D., the well-known prohibi-
ton Presbyterian divine of Chicago. 1t
indicates that, at least, one leading pro-
hibitionist is getting his eyes open:
The Independent recently declared
February u, 1888 that "the time had
come for concerted effort TO eXtermin-
ate those two allied curses and plague
spots of our cities, the liquor saloon and
the house of iIl-fame." DR.. Edward Ev
erett Hale, in recently considering the
question, ION what line may all the enc
mics of the saloon united do battle p" di
vided the opponents of the saloon into
two classes. First. those who would to-
tally prohibit both the man ufacture and
sale OF all alcoholic liquor for beverage
purposes. And second, those who detest
the open bar and count il menace TO
society and a source of the basest intiu
ences, although they do not regard a
moderate indulgence in spirituous liquors
as wrong. Many of this second class
themselves drink wine and other liquors.
But they are perfectly willing to take
any measures, even the most stringent,
Tor the abolition of the open bar. And
DIR. Hale ventures the prophecy that ''if
people to unite their forces 81 imply for the
suppression of the open bar, or the aboli
ton OF the saloon, the saloon would cease
TO exist within five years in nine-tenths
OF the States-Derhaps in all of them"
Beyond a doubt, the dominant senti-
ment OF the country IS against the saloon.
Equally beyond a doubt, this sentiment
has never been united and rallied in the
determination of the saloon. If the sa-
loon Is the menace and curse to society it
is declared to be by our entire religious
press, by large portion of our secular
press, by all our church organizations,
by our societies of reform, by our pub
licisis and statisticians, and by our courts
of justice, it ought to be possible to unite
all opponents of the saloon in its effective
suppression. 1t is great humiliation
and shame that this conceded and over
Whelmlng majority, embracing the best
clements of society and the State, and
representative of all that is enduring
and safeguarding in our civic structure
cannot pull itself together and secure
concert of action on so vital a matter. Is
there a possible lime on which all the
enemies of the saloon may unitedly do
battle?''
1 submit this paper in the full belief
that the stupendous interests at stake
make the question of the determination
of the liquor saloon far and away beyond
any other in practical politics and civic
reform, and in the full conviction that
sensible men who really hate the saloon
ought to let go all minor differences and
unite heartily for its suppression.
Perhaps there is no one thing in practical
life we need TO keep more clearly in
mind than the distinction between prin-
ciple and method. Perhaps there is no
one thing that is more often confused and
confOunded.
Principle comes from a word signify
ing "beginning." Hence, it means
cause" source" foundation; that
out of which other things arise, or upon
which other things are based, such as
rules, methods. Principle is therefore
something fundamental and general,
needing Interpretation and application to
particular cases. Method is simply mode
of operation.
y principle is a central, representative
truth in science or philosophy, religion
or morals, as the principles OF morality,
of equity, OF government.
A method is a way of doing things. 1t
is the particular application of princi-
pie. There Is such thing as a principle
OF utility. Gifts, graces, talents, posses
sions are for use. The general principle
is utility. The methods under that
principle are manifold. Judas seemed to
think there was only one method OF util-
izing ointment-selling it and giving the
money to the poor. So he charged Mary
with wasting the ointment poured on
Jesus. He made false application of the
principle of utility. Jesus rebuked him,
and taught the disciples that a morally
beautiful deed may have finer utility
than materially beneficent deed.
In general, principle is substance;
method is form. Principle is essential
method is circumstantial. Principle is
enduring and changeless; method may
change with every changing condition
and environment. Principle is inherent
the soul of things; method is external
a garment to be put on or Oft. Principle,
IN the domain OF morals, cannot be hon
orably abandoned-we must fight for it.
and If need be die for it; method we must
abandon, If we can thereby promote a
principle. Principle allows no choice:
method leaves room for great liberty OF
choice. Principle involves the ethics OF
action, and hence gets the clinch of con-
science; method is the machinery OF ac-
zion, and has little use for conscience.
Now with these clear and wide distinc-
tions before us, it will readily be seen
that if we get to confusing and confound-
ing principle and method. we will play
the mischief with morals and motives,
involve ourselves in endless confusion of
thought and speech, and possibly take
positions wholly untenable, do injustice
to differing opinions, and seriously in
juTe a great cause.
There are three points of danger. We
may so far lose sight of or misapprehend
principle as to lower it to the plane of
method. This would be to degrade prin-
ciple, TO sacrifice it on the altar of expe-
diency, or TO make an abject surrender of
it. This would subject us to the "woe''
of Scripture pronounced on all those
that call evil good, and good evil; that
put darkness for light and light for dark
ness"
Then, again, in our advocacy of some
particular line OF action, we may lift
method to the plane of principle, stamp
il as inherent" essential" change
less" and claim that it "allows no possi-
bility of choice; that it involves the
''ethics of action" and therefore that it
is ciinched by an imperative Ought"
This would lead to narrowness and bit
ferness. Along this road bigots are
born. In olden times it led to the rack,
the fagot and the stake. Happily we are
done with those material implements OF
torture. But the spirit of persecution is
not dead, and nothing will so easily rouse
il TO expression in extreme and denun-
ciatory and even venomous speech as en-
throning circumstantial on the high
seat of principle and making it the shib-
boleth OF fealty and fidelity.
There is third danger conceivable. \
principle may be recognized and accepted
without protest-general assent may be
given it; and yet a method of operation
may be adopted so utterly out OF gear
with that principle, and so antagonistic
in its results, as to be utterly subversive
OF it. In such case, of course the
method involves in itself principle op-
posed TO the one professedly accepted.
We must take care, therefore, lest we
degrade principle to the plane of ex-
pediency; and again, lest we exalt method
TO the plane of principle; and again, lest