The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1898-02-11
WEI SOME HONEST PEoVLE ARE
NO q Pr 0IIIBIYICNISTS

= mo = }'Jt OIl{BI
5'Fnoa f|}1Iiimore Er@niDg Meas cf.
Tuesday l;.s, published an abb edi-
teral, justly claiming that the Prohi-
bitioniSts do not include within their
RANKS MI the morality and goodness
eXt4nt. .,,,... .. .....s...
Ia, i.is. ,lectare at Johns Hopkins
University or the same day, President
Francfs j.. Patton, OF Princeton Uni
vcrsitS, speaking Oh tile subject of
"Aora' Obligations, ." said, You cali
natlcha,+Se rhe purple robe of Christ
ianfyy to the blue coat of the police
mar and tell people they must be
good -
Tia the questions. of the general
sentiment and opinion Of mankind,
ana OF Individual liberty and restraint
upon. the same by prohibition, the
NeteS has the following to say:
There are scores of millions of hu.
man beings-namely nearly all the
population of the chief countries of
the Continent of Europe-who, SO far
froln agreeing with them in their view
look npon the idea OF suppressing the
drinking OF wine and beer in public
places as = monStrosity, and a thing
which WOULD go very far to make life
dreafy.for millions of most excellent
people. The view is held not only by
light-niuded or selfish persons, but by
the best and most earnest and most
high-minied men, including certainly
a very large portion Of the clergy, with
out distinction to sect. How many or
whether any of these excellent and
conscientious persons have ever in
any explicit way laid down the doc
trine !; hat the evils springing from
excessive drinking from moderate
drinking" or the doctrine that even
if these evils are greater than the
benefits, therestraiut upon individual
freedom involved i'll prohibition is
wrong in principle, and would work a
greater injury upon mankind, though
in Il very different way, than does the
evil which it attacks" we confess
that we have no means of determin-
ing; but evidently it is plain infer
erce from their conduct and CONVEX
satieH tifat they must hold one or
-other oFhoth of these two views
And f.courSe these views are not
confined to Europe. SO far. at least,
as thesacord of them is concerned,
oil h,
American citizens Of German birth or
descent, for instance, but it is also
certainly held by many millions of
citizens who are Americans by long
descent. But our correspondent
challenges US 10 Justify our statement
that " q tii.d ta&t there is very great
force in these positions. 1t is impossi-
bic, % be sure. to make d parallel
column" exhibits Ct the benefits that
the upholders OF drinking may claim
as arising from il, which should match
the undoubtedly frightful record of
harm done by drunkenness. The evils
are-yery startling and impressive in
each individual instance; the good is
of far less tangible kind, and can
not be recNoned on in anything like
statistical fashion. Most prohibition
istswotlfd doubtless deny its existence,
in toto. For what we have reference
to IS By 80 means, Il mere physical
qualification. In ali ages of mankind
Drinking has been a promoter of
~ Il -,
of relaxing the strain OF hard every.
day life, which nothing else has yet
been found 10 replace. Many people
feel no need of this relief; many others
feel 10 need of any other sociability
than that which can be got from the
gravest kind Of conversation in a
library or drawing room. But not
everybody is cast i'll the same mold,
ana IT, Is fortunate they are not. To
vast muititudeS of persons, the easy,
friendly sociGhIencss that accoI2pan-
les drinking is one of the few things
WHICH brighten life and make it some
thing; else than Il dull monotonous
grind; and for many persons the flash.
ing out OF warm and generous senti-
neHt at Il cornwall gathering now and
then IS nOta Mere pleasure of the mo-
ment, but-it is IL great element in pre-
serving the picturesqueness and the
poetry of life.
The question of the restraint upon
individual freedom is not Il question
OF constitutional right, and cannot be
answeredin the way in " hich our
correspondent adopts. To hold that
any one has an inherent right to sell
intoxicating liquor by retail"-or, for
that matter, by wholesae-we freely
grant is quite absurd. The State has
right to regulate the liquor traffic,
and, il it pleases, to abolish it. The
question at issue is quite different
one; not III the least a question of the
rights OF the government, but of the
ends sought to be accomplished. The
object and intent of prohibition is
nos tie prevention Of selling, but the
prevention Of drinking The individ-
ual freedom which is treuched upon
is tie freedom to enjoy ones self III
ones own way 50 long Is one Goesn's
interfere with the safety or peace or
wellaFe.oi other persons. The right
to employ The means-r rohibtion OF
sa!ee-is otIu6stioned; the serious op-
polents u prohibition DO not raise a
Fictitious issUe 40 to the means used,
buta real issue AS to the end sought.
That end is st.ntiaily All infringe
ment OF Individual freedom of the kind
;tboTe defined. We do not say that
unGef no circumstances can such an
Infringement be Justified. But we do
say THAT it is 4 most serious thing TO
do, aud further that all cases like
those cited by our correspondent are
OF Il totally different nature. You are
prohi 2ited from building frame
house because you would thereby in
trc1luca danger to other peoples
property" @hich they haYe 10 means
OF avertinE; not because it tempt your
neighbCr to burn down his own house
but because the burning of yours may,
without ANY contributory act on his
part c:juse the destruction Of his
Shooting and fast driving are obvious
- III the same category. In all these
cases, the object is 10 prevent one man