The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1897-12-17

| Misses May Butler, of Towson; Alice Lee
\ Mrs. Gilbert 5. Hawkins Messrs. Jamel
| Clayton and and J. Frank Riley, OF Baltimore
! g. Cover Street, and others, Mesdamcs
| Reckord and Bisscll acted rs rianSts.
| Prof Chas. Il. Wright vs.. w. +. Brand
\ communication from me to Tile zbgtS, un
der the heading 'IHe GrUaa Jury and a strong
License Latr," has been reviewed by Professor
Wright. Il preface my views" he says, with
declaration SO uncontrovertible, SO aXioma'
tic that it is very likely, unless watchiully
guarded against, to render all the more dan
gerous the fallacious sophistry that follows in
its wake"
Sophistry is defined to be reasoning sound
in appearance only, especially when designedly
dcccptiVc.'' Is the term applied to what have
written intended to he understood in this
spe,iaI sense: And does the Professor further
mcan to say that have uttered what he calls "a
hs,lf-truth' with the purpose to deceive!
As to the sophistry that makes my writing
dangerous, readers must find it for themselves.
But this is the fullaCious half-truth that is de-
uounced. Having spoken of the statement
made by the grand jury, viz, that their efforts
to enforce the existing law had been in vain :;
and having asserted that from every quarter
complaints are heard that facilities for drunk
euncss abourls said Il am not much in the
way of knowing what Others tell me they
know; but, not unfrequently, | meet drunken
men coming from Bel Air" My reviewer
cannot understand why make this assertion
without, at the same time, adding its undenia-
bic supplement, that many men get drunk
whcre-intoXicantS may, under high license
law be sold" | cannot understand why /
should be expected to assert what no one has
ever venturcd to deny. The world over. since
Noah began to be an husbandman and planted
Il vineyard, there have been very many men to
bring shame on themselves by drunkenness.
Were captous, could say that can under
stand how the charge of suppression of the
truth may be suggested by imHHendo.
The questions before me were Does Prohibit
ton prevent, or even lessen, drunkenness? Is
it accom- panied by evils that aggravate the evil
it does not prevent? Seeking an answer to
these questions, SAID, depend on the state
acnts Of others; and | gave some answers 10
my personal enquiries; at the same time
frankly stated that evidence on this subject is
contradictory. | gave the evidence of IL well
informed friend in Maine who asserted that,
taken as Il whole, i'll Maine drinking had not
been lessened, but rather increased. He
further stated that the common violation of
the prohibtory law leads to evils greater, in his
Judgment, than that which the advocates of
Prohibition would check. | would now add
tie testimony of another friend, II lawyer,
whose practice at the time of his death was, l
suppose, greater than that of any other mem
Der OF our bar. He declared that, herein HGr-
ford, the local option law had lowered regard
for law in general and for the sanctity of an
oath.
Mr.. Wright scouts at the idea of men drink
ing the more through "bravado." One knows
but little Of human nature who does not know
chat men are pushed to extremes through re-
sistance to what they count oppressive injus-
tcc.
My reviewer asks whether | think that theft
aud other crimes ARE perpetrated because OF
law, or in spite of II" l answer, the question
could only be asked by one who classes what
becomes Il crime through excess with crimes
which, while they may be greater or less in de-
gree, are i'll tie tea>t degree crimes against God
and man. | make this answer despite what is
conceded later on i'll the review.
1t is also asked why will men persist in
drawing conclusions from shallow premises !!
Ii is something like this: There exists a pre-
hibtory law i'll Hartford; man has been seen
drunk in Hartford; therefore the prohi0itOry
law is responsible for this drunken man"
take leave to PROFOUND another sylog:sm
watch does not lead to an absurdity. There
exists prohbitory law in Hartford; there are
often seen drunken men in Hartford, singly and
in numbers; therefore Prohibition does not
prevent drunkenness in Hartford.
wrote that what is complained of in Hur-
ford is frequent experience where the at
tempt is made to make men sober" [ might
have used an expression less liable te perver-
sion. But my meaning was not hidden to the
man who writes ''Mr. Brand believes in punish
ing b. tn the drunkard and the man who helps
to make him drunk" To believe this is to be-
lieve that men ought 10 be kept sober even
against their will. The words / have quoted
are Mr.. Wrights; and yet he says: Mr. Brand
is opposed to making men sober against their
consent. Permit me to ask him why he draws
the line 1t this particular point? Does he op-
pose IN >,ng men refrain from thevng and
forgery and assault and murder against their
consent :" The learned Professor is safe from
the charge he brings against me-that of sophs-
try-and sophistry implies reasoning sound in
appearance" Mt least.
| have said that drunkenness is sin against
society, and as such ought to be, and it is to
some extent punished. Moderate drinking is
not Il crime. Mr.. Wright says it is not, when he
says that but for drunkenness "the temperance
men of Hartford would never have dreamed OF
robbing Mr.. Brand of his wine''
Mr.. Wright holds that 1.-THE primary principle
of Prohibition is not to say that men shall moi
drink but that nie0 shall not De licensed a"d he0dL
~ pe1H,tttd to sell g0t ay,d unlimited quantities o.
| riis HtOTicdHtS ~ thousands dHd millions Of me1
,rho do, G"d ,riH GecOme uo,thles>, a5nSice, lar
6leak,ing, murdsr0uS drmkardS." My idea O
| Prohibition has been that it assumes that it i
sinful TO sell, or to use that which may lead IL
| tine making of lawless, murderous drunkards
This idea has been impressed upon me by Pro
hibitonists. | am'glad that my reviewer doe
not hold this idea, and only wish that he hat
! been authorized to speak thus in the name o
the Hartford Prohibition party. There is not
| decent man in the county who desres-not
| man of any class who could dare assert that h
eSres what Prof. Wright, in the words that
| have UNDERSIGNED, declares is all that the Pre-
hibtionists-I have again and again encounter
ed such-refuses to believe that any man can il
sincerity condemn drunkenness who uses win
in all moderation and for worship-as prot
| Mr.. Wright gives me the benefit of the doubt
Towards the close of the review, by no mean
It's last W ords, Prof. Wright would show hoy
ilogica! am. The basis OF his argument is
wrong Interpretation of my words He say
that Il would not make men sober agains
their consent; and yet high license, If effective
woulG be compulsive."
If the result of high license, 'hedged abou
with restrictions, could be what he suggests
viz: The closing of saloons and so compellin
men to be sober, then the end which the Pro
h!hitionist seeks would be reached by tn
means he denounces. The assertion with II
| gard TO what would not do does not EXPIRE.
my meaning. l will not so underrate my II
viewers intellect as to suppose that he think
that deny the right of government to compt
a man to avoid drunkenness, which is a Grim
the result Cd an abuse of Il right. The so
question-one | confess not of easy solution
is how to prevent crime without violation
| liberty, and without leading to other evil
The protest of the thorough Prohibitonist il
There can be no right use of that which ms
be abused-may lead to intoxication. The on
cure for drunkenness is to make it impossib
for Il man to become drunk" Here we 10
! issue. Denying his first assestion, do not b
5 Iieve that he is pursuing course to make
impossible to become II drunkard. Very fl
: from it.
D repeat, local option as a civil law is to
! Judged of by rules Of expedience" Pace Pre-
Wright, all wise and good men are not of Il
opinion that there can be but one judgmer
) Here is the strongest evidence have seen
favor of Prohibition. Judge Russum, of Car
e line county. has said LAS general thing t
q !