Mississippi leader. (Jackson, Miss.) 1892-1895, 1894-01-30
The "Smart Alec" Tribe Sc
vercly Rebukcd.
BY j. ID. SMITH, NJ. ID.


written Tor HE Mississippi Leader.
have just read Bishop GalIoway's
interview of Jan. /, '94, at jackson,
Miss, published in the New Orleans
Picayune of 2nd, and republshed III
THE LEADER of the 9th. There is so
much in Bishop Galloway to admire
and commend that it may seem to
some a waste of time to undertake to
point out in what hc may do or say,
anything Objectionable. And yet, one
mistake made by such man may Sc
riously involve the most vital interests
of millions of others. Then again,
having been member of the same
Church as the Bishop for over forty
years, and being in accord with the
doctrines and in love with the pOlity
of that church, | may not be just the
man to point out and critically discuss
what may seem to me an error in one
whom l so highly esteem. But l am
not among the number who seem to
believe that Bishop cannot make a
mistake, nor do regard Bishop Gal
loway as one who claims to even ap-
proach infalibility by reason of the
high office to which he has been pro-
noted. He is one of us, and one of
the people in affairs of both Church
and State, and we all feel that we can
so treat him and be treated by him.
Hence l have nothing to do in this
discussion with his ecclesiastical title,
but shall deal simply with the express
ed opinions of Chas. B. Galloway.
And | claim that in the above named
interview, he is in error, or that | am
in error, and that if the error in either
one of us, and in those who act with
us is perpetuated, it will iDjuriOusly
affect thousands who are to come af-
ter us; and hence it is not only our
privilege but our duty as brethren
to give each other the benefit of de-
tailed discussion of the exact question
involved. l have no controversy with
Bishop Galloway with regard to Mis-
sissippi having the most thoroughly
restrictive Liquor Licensing Law of
any State in the Union; and yet, ac-
cOrding to his own showing it is but
little more restrictive than were the
laws of that territory ninety -one years
ago. (See his published interview.)
And if Mississippi will re-enfranchise
her male population to the same eX-
tent as exists in other States of the
Union, l question if it will be more
effective than her restrictive law of
1903.
The Bishop says, awe arc not afraid
of the qualified electors. 1t is the un-
qualified, generally, who favor liquor
n
frage has become the mightiest weap-
on in the hands of PrOhibitionists."
If this is true (Which we do not
question: and Mississippi does not
seize the golden opportunity thereby
made to intrench herself behind the
strongest prohibitOry measures it is
possible to enact into law, she should
never again boast of her foresight OF
intelligence. do not think there ia
another State in the Union that would
not do it under similar circumstances.
And now l come to the main point
of difference between Bishop Gallo
way and myself. Speaking of the
Mississippi liquor licensing lao, he
says, 81 believe our law one OF the
very best in the United States. 1t is
based on correct principle, is fair in
its provisions, is well calculated to de-
velOp and keep alive moral conviction
on the great evils of the liquor traffic
and sooner or later will lead to the
complete emancipation of the State
These are startling declarations
when coming from an eminent Divine;
and if strictly true the Bible is a farce
and our boasted civil government is
q fraud; or else am too dull of com
prehensiOn to understand the plair
statement of position made in my
own mother tongue. Let rs under
stand first that our United States Su'
preme Court has settled the question
that, .'there is no greater source OF
crime and suffering to society than
the dramshOp"; and that because O
this well settled fact, 'there is no in
herent right in a citizen of State ol
of the United States to conduct one"
and that the creating of such a righ
"is n matter of legislative will only
(See Crowly VS.. Christensen, U. S. Re
port. vol. 1877, p. 80, date Nov. 10
'90.l
| Now, in the case of all other evils
declared by our highest court to have
no inherent right to exists because o
their evil nature, the rule with allleg
islative bodies Is not to license or le
palixe them with restrictions, bu
simply to enact legal penalty fo
ngaging in them. And this is jus
what PrObibitionists who wish t.
make our laws harmonize with them