The aegis & intelligencer., 1898-01-28
Prof. Chas II. Wright VS.. W. f. Brand.

| Prof. Chas. +. Wright VS.. W. +. Brand.
II must have been my phrophetic soul" that
prompted the use of this heading. l have said
that the mode of arguing of my Reviewer is
not that of one simply seeking truth. He now
asserts that he has written as "any attorney at
the bar, any practiced debater in the Lyceum"
would speak. This assertion would be more
| opposite were it not so sweeping; for all de-
baters, even all paid attorneys, have not the
same sense of propriety. The review opens
with warning to the reader to watch against
| the fallacious sOphistry that follows the init
nation that l, as should every good citizen.
| obey the law of the land. From this suggestion
| of dishonesty to the last sentence written, the
| Reviewer is, in the main, Versus the writer
| who's, article in Tile -EgiS is reviewed. One is
| reminded of the proverbial brief given by the
English attorney TO the barrister, mo case.
| Abuse the opposing counEelr / would not
| intimate that the uphoIdcr of the Local Option
| Law has no case. But do think that IL wiser
! maiutaincr of that Law would not have closely
| followed what Mr. Wright thinks controversy
| demands. How many honest-minded men has
! he won TO the support of his cause?
/ known that the voters of the county can
not be interested in what has no bearing on the
| question which they are to decide. There fore
! shall not further discuss Prof. Wright's per-
soualiIics. In his last publication he charac-
| teriZcd my second as IA wall instead of an
argument Could he but know how little NJ y
wounded spirit is disposed to the utterances of
| notes of woe. How little my serenity has been
disturbed by what l have thought it well to
| notice. He promises to discuss the third COM
munication. If he confines himself to the pre-
sentatOn of personalities, | shall yield him the
consolation of having the last word; do not
think that he can derive much comfort from
what he will thus close.
Taking advantage of the call to say in plain
English what mean, will now again state
what think ON the question that now occupies
the thoughts of many i'll Hartford county, and
so doing dismiss all thought of my reviewer.
Drunkenness, looked urOn US an Otfense
against society, is not the greatest of evils, but
it is the cause of IL great many, and may be
very readily muguincd into the chief of evils.
Society has tire GOD given right TO resist and
control far possible, wrongs done to
itself. How shall society deal with drunken
ness Ibis is Il question involving cxpedicncy.
All things that are lawful not eXpedient.
The best mode of GeIling with evil, under the
circumstances, is to bC sought, perhaps the
best out OF many. At one time it was thought
expedient to punish theft as murder was pun
ishcd. 4 poor convicted thief once said to the
Judge about to put on his black cap, My Lord,
1 think il IL hard thing that man should be
hanged for stealing = sheep" and the answer
was You Will not be hanged for stealing u
sheep; but in order that sheep may not be
stolen" At this time there are many who
think that the taking of life judicially for any
cause is in itself murder. Not that what we
mean 10y murder is not condemned, but simply
the mode of preventing the evil.
What Is cXpedieut in dealing with drunken
hess! We are all of accord that it should not
be let alone. There are among us men, sold
| under SIM" who claim the right to brutalize
| themselves and to brutalize others. These are
the InC' who should be made to feel the force
of the law. There are among us two classes,
one that believe that the means of producing
drunkenness the drinking and the selling of
Intoxicating liquor should be under the control
of government without violating personal
| liberty. The other class declares that there can
be no liberty to do evil. (which in the abstract
| Is true That us drunkenness grows out OF
moderate drinking, all means of obtaining in
| tOxicating liquor should be suppressed, the
selling of such punished. These parties bear
NNAAN Va
the terms for ProhibitionD Both names require
that one should understand what is meant by
them. 1t Hi III License implies that State revenue
should be increased as much as possible by the
granting protected permission to do wrong,
| then no good citizen could consent to being
called an advocate of High License But High
| License rightly implies that high tax on what
is in Itself lawful, but greatly liable to abuse,
will increase tine probabilities of controlling
attendant evils. How to prevent intemperance
| in drinking has long occupied the attention of
| wise Lawmakers. Some have thought that the
state should assume the sole right to sell
| liquors. | believe sweden has some such mode
| OF checking the evil. L have not the wisdom
| that would fit Il { to be IL law-maker. But
| haVe-as who has not? speculated. l would
punish the man, high or low, found i'll state
| of intoXication, because he has put himself in
| a condition to wrong others, and to unfit him
self for his responsible tiles. With each increas-
| ing otfense ! would increase the penalty. l
| would increase the responsibility of the liquor
| seller, FIRST making the finding Il man drunk on
| his premises, or coming from his premises,
| ptimu facie evidence that he had been the cause
| of the drunkenness.
| But ins teitd OF wasting paper on the present
| ing OF my crude ideas, turn to the considera-
| ton of the advocated mode of preventing in
| toXcation by iOrbddng all sale of which, used
| intcmperately, will cause drunkenness. do
| not think prohibition expedent. That is
| think it is not the best de-however mad
euuate other modes may bc-to the securing
| the end sought. For my judgment of the re-
| suits of prohibition am chiefly dependent on
| the testimony of others. Within the last week
| | met a respectable, wholly sober citizen who
| came into our county about the time local
| option was adopted. He said to me- ~ would
| vote for prohibition did believe that it would
| d what il processes to do. During twenty
| years lived in Maine under prohibition laws
| and know that during all that time there was
not the least check upon drinking, or its bad con-
| sequences" For myself recognize the truth
of much that is said by prohibitioniSts- Sc
| ducing influence of the bright saloon, the
danger of treating and tipping and the like. AS
4 citizen | would be willing to sacrifice what
count my liberty, if prohibition could do what
it aims at But as Christian | utterly re-
| nounce-denounce--tne principle that underleS
| Prohibition. | believe that it is an insinuator
| of the devil. That it leads to inidelity, TO the
rejection of Gods word. 1t is evident to al
that if a man does not drink ut all he cannot
become a drunKard. The prohibitioust argues
that to drink at all is fountain and origin" OF
drunkenness, and therefore is itself sin. But
Gods word is very far from forbidding what
this theory condemns, therefore, it is concluded
what is called Gods word teaches falsity.
| have said above that to call moderate drinking
Initial sim would be to make God the author
of sin. | have not the slightest doubt that Goo
does sanction moderate drinking, and has giver
to man the means which being abused become:
Il sin. There is no stronger passion than th'
instinct of reproduction. This belongs to maj
as Il creature OF God. 1t was said TO man il
Paradise Increase and multiply and ye
lust is the most common Of deadly sins. cal
not treEpass further. But if, Hs is not prob
able. any reader should perchance desae
fuller defense of my position, viz, that th'
principle underlying prohibition is II contradic
ton Of Gods word, can give HIM the oppor
tInity of gratifying his curiosity.
| W. +. BRAND.