The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1893-04-13
THE QUESTION OF CAIN.

Excuse of Liquor Dealers for Running
Their Fellowmen.
1t is one of the stock arguments of
the rum power-that is, of the men
whose debasing occupation it is to pam
der to the depraved taste for liquors,
the vice of drunkenness, in their fellow
men-against all restrictive legislation,
that the privilege of selling, and of
supplying the demand for liquors on
the part of the men who drink in mod
Grafton, should not be taken away SIM
ply because other men indulge i'm
moderately and have become drunken
sots. The argument is in effect that
the latter class are themselves to blame
for not having the will-power to stop
before drunkenness became a fixed
habit with them. why should we,"
they argue, "be obliged to stop selling
entirely, because part of our custom
ers are men who can not control them
selves?"
This argument is exactly the same in
its nature as that involved in Gains
questioning reply when asked the
whereabouts of his brother Abel. Gam
my brothers keeper?' sullenly queried
earth's primal parricide in answer. The
underlying idea in both cases is that
every man is to look out for himself,
and for nobody else; that he is not to
be expected to take any interest in the
welfare of any other person, nor to
have any one else to do so as to himself.
In place of the brotherhood of man, the
doctrine of personal isolation and indie
pendence is assumed. This not only
contravenes the fundamentals of Chris
tianity, but is negatived by the accepted
tenets of modern civilization, in such
laws as those which guard the sale of
poisonous drugs like opium, and others
in which the principle that one man
shall not, in the pursuit of his occupa-
ton. afford the opportunity to another
to injure himself, is involved.
The tendency of civilization is con-
stantly to widen the circle of human
solidarity--to enforce the duty and re-
sponsibility upon each one of brother
hood within certain limits. A man may
not do that which, even though it
should be innocent in itself, may work
harm or damage to his neighbours pos
sessions; for instance, he may not build
dam which will back water upon an
other mans farm, and render any por-
ton of it too wet He may not run
gambling room wherein other men may
crafty their craze for the vice of gam
bling. Why, then. should he be al
lowed to sell liquor, and thus foster an
other vice of poor fallen humanity?
The excuse that only part of the Gus
toners are drunkards, and that the re-
mainder are only moderate drinkers, is
no excuse at all; for in time the latter
will become drunkards, or else abandon
the habit entirely before their will
power is destroyed In the end it be-
comes choice between the two; and
we know, unfortunately, which path
the majority unfortunately choose.
This is a view of the relations be-
tween man and man which, strangely
enough, many men are perfectly will
ing to admit as general principle, yet
demur thereto when specific applica-
ton is made to the liquor traffic. Yet it
is one of the strongest arguments for
the prohibition of that traffic by law.
The noted decision of the United States
supreme court in the California case is
in line with it; for that decision de-
clares that the sale of intoxicating
liquors is never exercised as a right; it
is, even where it is without any legal
restriction, existing only on sufferance
The state may do what it Wilt may
restrict, tax, license or prohibit, and
the rumseller has no recourse, because
his occupation is one which is noto-
riously injurious to mankind and det-
riment to the body polite. Hence,
where the traffic is still allowed, even
under restrictions, we must expect to
find that public sentiment needs edu-
eating up to the standard of its sup
preston; and this work of education
must be done before the effort will
prove completely successful to pulver-
ize the rum power. Blade.