The Portland daily press., 1897-12-02
PUBLIC OPINION AND LAW.
Bangor Ciergyman's Remarks on the
Question of Prohibition.

CuUltI HPoho VI INC IallurS W eHloAoo oA
prohibitory law, arguing that pubic
opinion on the subject WAS the cause OF
the non-enforcement. He stated the
problem to be, "How to bring the law
into touch with the average moral sense
of the community. and how to bring
local opinion into wholesome relations
with the law SO that 1t can be applied to
enforce it. in the course OF his re-
marks after explaining how custom
affects law. Mr.. Cutler said:
sAnd the first thing that strikes US is
that public opinion and the Prohibitory
Law are not on very good terms with
each other in Bangor. The law as it
reads and the law as it is practiced are
two quite different things. | have no
doubt, may say, that to lawyer who
is accustomed to the fexibility of law in
practice and who is familiar with the
large latitude exercised by tie courts in
administering the law that this does not
appear to be quite so clear case of law
lessness as it seems to you and me. am
not defending the Penobscot system of
administering the liquor law. am only
saying that the gulf between the law, as
it stands on the statute and the law as it
is administered in the courts can hardly
be taken as a fair measure of the law
lessness of the community.
"Nobody means to say take it that
this is in most respects a lawless COM
munity-that rights OF property, person
and contract may not be as secure here as
in any New England city The fact is
things don't always work as badly as
theoretically they ought to work. No
doubt the present condition of lawlessness
in respect to liquor laws is demoralizing
to respect for law-but let US not exagger-
ate. 1t is quite bad enough.
"But the fact we have to face is that
prohibition does not receive today the
confidence of the intelligent public opin-
ion in Bangor. | do not mean that there
may not be many intelligent men and
women among lis who are prOhibitionists
and | respect their moral earnestness-
but do not see why | should not frankly
say-what most of you say personally and
privately-tha we do not believeiin pro
hibition.
any to say-for it need to be said-that
there are good reasons why prohibition
fails to command united moral support
[ do not care to argue the point but
may be pardoned in stating my own
conviction that prohlbitory legislation
does not rest on a sound moral basis.
The premise of prohibition-to quote it's
own platform-that The manufacture
and sale of Intoxicating liquors is a
crime per se' is a proposition that will
not stand intelligent moral Judgment.
"As I understand it there are two dis
tinct kinds of crimes. There are first
crimes that are evil in themselves mala
in re'-Eecause they violate the law of
nature and the law of God such as mur-
things not always and necessarily evil in
themselves which become crimes when
the law prohibits them for reasons of
public policy. Mala prohibita' such for
example as game laws or tariff laws.
T.. Now the attempt has been made to
put prohibitory legislation into the first
class, on the ground that the use Of
alcohol is essentially sinful, sin to drink
a glass of beer and q crime to sell it be-
cause it violates the law of nature and
the law of Sod as clearly as stealing or
adultery are crimes because they do.
"Now that ground cannot ! believe be
maintained.
= 90 QOb Qu6SUiCu LOT ID IuOIuenU UlaU
there is ground enough for prohibitory
legislation in the right of the state for the
sake of the public good to restrict or pro-
hibit social or moral evil which may
become a crime against society because
the law prohiblus it -'mala prohibita'-
but as l understand it that is not the
ground on which prohibition has usually
been put. And as to total abstinence for
the person-that does not depend upon the
principle that the use of alcohol Is in
itself sin-but because the abuse of it is
such fearful evil that it may become
ones higher duty to himself or to others
to let it alone. That is ST. Paul's high
ground and is consistent moral ground
tThe law makes no distinction between
malt and distilled liquors although there
is broad dlfference-or rather The actual
distinction is to increase the consumption
of distilled liquors of the deadliest sort
when the law is enforced. The law
moreover, even if sound in its premises
and equable in its provisinons has gone
too far and too fast ana in attempting to
do too much has done too little.
"No legislation can of course make men
temperate and in undertaking to do SO it
weakens the force of the only moral agen-
cies that can make temperate men.
81 believe that the prohibitory agita-
tion of the last twenty years has discour-
aged and displaced the methods of tenn
perance reform which were so popular and
useful as many of us remember. There
used to be temperance meetings in City
Hall every Sunday afternoon when l first
came to Bangor. We have hardly any
thing of the kind now. Bishop Healy, of
Portland, testities that prohibition has
discouraged temperance societies in the
Catholic church. These considerations.
which l do not care to go into in detail
have tended to weaken the public conf
dence in prohibitory legislation and make
it difficult to enforce it.
"The statement was made by one ofvthe
speakers here last Thursday that public
sentiment has no place In the internre-
tation or enforcement of law!' The
speaker may have meant that in his
opinionsitggought to have no place. but he
must know that as matter of fact pub.
lie opinion does have very large place
In the interpretation and enforcement of
law Lord Mansfield, the greatest of
English jurists, is the exponent of the
alter the law must adapt itself to them
and he made more law than any English
jnrist.