Mississippi leader. (Jackson, Miss.) 1892-1895, 1894-01-30

ties, propose to do with the judicially
declared liquor traffic evil. But the
first thing the Mississippi liquor law
does is to license the business and
thereby create and invest in some one
the right to run it, and then begin to
place restrictions around it and raise
"a revenue from it. And this, Bishop
Galloway says he believes to be zone
of the very best laws Ton the subject)
in the United States" Yes; equally as
good if not better than the laws of
States that do not license it at all!
Why did not the Bishop enter his pro-
test in our last General Conference
when it voted unanimously. eve
are opposed to all forms of license of
this iniquity, whether the same be
'hgh' or low" And again, tive of
fer no compromise to, and seek no
terms from sin of this heinOus quail
itym And what does this startling
position of the Bishop involve! 1t
involves this principle in government;
that it is better to authorize by statu-
tory law the practice of an evil that
has been outlawed by our highest
court on common law principles, and
sell men the privilege under restrc-
tions to engage in it as II means OF
raising a revenue, than it is to let it
remain without any legal right to ex-
, ist, and attach penalties by law to the
act of engaging i'll it sufficient to deter
any ordinary man from such course.
This is exactly the position of Mis-
sissippi, and of every other licensing
local option State; and the one sub
stantially endorsed by Bishop Gallo
way in his late interview, and declar
ed by him to be CHASED upon correct
principle" and to be "fair in its pro.
Visions
Now if the Bishops position
is right the Bible is wrong,
for there cannot be II prece
dent or model found for it in all of
the laws promulgated through
Moses to the Israelites. IF it is right
the Romish church was right in sell
ing indulgences with restrictions and
Luther was wrong in opposing them.
Further more, if the position of the
Bishop is right Oh the liquor question,
the policy of our government, both
State and National, is wrong on every
other question; for the liquor evil is
the only one that is dealt with in that
way.
Let us test the correctness of the
Bishops assertion that license with
restrictions and local option cOmbin
ed, ''is based up on correct principle,
and is fair in its provisions" by ap
plying the very same principle and
provisions in the treatment of other
evils. Both the court and the church
have said that poly gamy is an evil, just
as they have said the liquor traffic is
an evil. Now substitute license with
restrictions and local option for that
evil and in less than five years, in all
human probability, every State in the
Union will have sparsely settled cOun-
ties and possibly densely populated
towns where enough of the vicious
and debauched will collect to estab-
lish the custom and start the diffusion
of the Infection. Substitute it for the
practice of open adultery and cOncu-
binage and the same result will fol-
low. Substitute it for Sabbath Oh
servance and the Sabbath is gone. Sub
stitute it for lottery and other forms
of gambling and gambling hells will
soon dot the country like black birds.
And so with almost or quite every
other form of evil provided against by
direct fines and penalties.
Will the Bishop deny that such
would be the result? And if so, will
he advocate the substitution of license
with restrictions and local option for
the prohibitOry penalties now attach
ed to the practice of such evils? And
! if he will not do that then will he eX-
plain the logic by which he makes it
the correct way to deal with the IL
quor traffic evil and not the correct
way to deal with other evils placed
by our courts on precisely the same
footing? The only difference is one
has been extensively legalized by
special statutory laws while the 9th
ers, with rare exceptions for some of
them, have not. Repeal all liquor IL
censing laws, and attach legal penal
ties to the acts of manufacturing and
dealing in it for beverage purposes,
and our criminal laws against evil
practices will all harmonize at once,
and one will not be antagonizing, nn-
dcrmining and weakening others. If
there is any argument that will hold
good in favor of licensing the bever-
age liquor traffic with any sort or
amount of restrictions it will hold
good with regard to the other evils
named; and our Federal government
did wicked and despotic act when
it suppressed polygamy in Utah. If
there ever was an authorized evil with
restrictions, coupled with local option
pure and simple, and based upon the
will of local majority, those people
had it. There was just as much use
for it, and more humanity in it than
can possibly attach to the license bev-
erage liquor traffic; and the local law
authorizing it, secular aud ecelesias-
tical, was based upon just as correct a
principle as the Mississippi liquor Ii
censing law that our Bishop endorses.
The law of the church and of custom
in Utah gave rich man who was able
to do it, the privilege of taking care
of several women and all of their chill
dren. The liquor licensing law of
Mississippi gives both rich and poor
the privilege of infiicting OIL women
and children whenever the good peO
pie happen to be in decided minOri-
ty, the most damnablc punishment
that ever cursed the inhabitants OF
earth-destitutiOD, want, hunger,