The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1898-07-19
DIR. Coke Smith Agaia on Prohibition.


EDITOR HERALD AND NEWS: An
honest difference of opinion should not
furnish reason for harsh judgments
or for harsh words. Xon kindly gave
my former scribblc u place in your
columns and devoted an editorial to its
notice. | read your article with much
interest and appreciate it's kindly tone:
but, as you are already prepared to be-
hcre, was not convinced by it that my
position as q prohibitiunist is wrong
and yours as an advocate OF the license
system is right. do not desire to en-.
ter into controversy for tho sake of
. controversy; but l believe that the
,, question OF the license or the prohibi-
! tion Of the liquor traffic is one of the
most important questions now before
the people Of civilized countries, and
| settled. No question is ever settled
, until it is settled right: and we ought.
| therefore, as participators in the legis-
latiOn OF our own land to look at this
subject honestly and find our duty in
| the premises.
You remark that in my former article
| raised metaphysical questions. In
| this you are mistaken. | tried to look
at this matter purely from an economic
| standpoint. | dc not assume that be-
cause the liquor traffic is sin there
fore it should be made a crime. take
/ -,
does not deal with sin IS sin. The
| liquor traffic is a sin, but as sin the
civil law cannot take cognizance Of it.
1t must be dealt with on economic
grounds. The theory of prohibitionists
| is not rs yon say "to remove all tempta-
| tion" and "leavc q man to glide smooth
| ly through the world" This is no more
the theory Of prohibtionists than re-
| ligious development is the purpose of
sanitary law. The position of prohibit
tionists is this: the manufacture and
sale OF intoxicating liquors is not an
| industry in any legitimate sense OF that
word, but is destroyer Of wealth: it is
an injury to those who make it and to
| those who use it.: it is the most potent
agent known to man for the destruction
of life, property, happiness and liberty:
and it breaks the fundamental principle
OF our constitution that every man has
m !na!ieneh!e right TO life, liberty and
the pursuit OF happiness. This cOnten-
tion prohibtionists are prepared to
make good. | believe every article in
this contention can be maintained be-
yond cavil.
You ask, "would you save men BY
removing sin and temptation or would
you make them strong to overcome and
resist evil?"
This is shifting the question to pure
| Is religious ground where u license
system would have no chance of justli-
cation. Moreover You take into view
the moral evil to the drinker only.
Would you license some men to do
wrong, to wreck the health and
thoughts of thousands in order to
strengthen others by resistance?
Where would that lead? Would it not
be welt for Il man who has sons to board
a Cyprian in his house to strengthen
the morals of his boys by resistance of
temptation? Some might be ruined
but the others would be the stronger.
Your remark, 1.-The purpose OF the Crea-
tor was to give us trials and tempta-
tions and also to strengthen us by over
coming these temptations, will hardly
pass for good theology. God tempts
no man ::3:' dos inc approve Of tcniijta-
tion any more than he approves Of sin.
He does send trials upon men, but there
is vast difference between trial and
temptation. a temptation Is where the
present good OF an net evil in itself is
pleaded for its committal while the
subsequent evils are hid from view. a
trial is where the present evil of an act
good in itself is prominent and its sub.
sequent good is hid The devil tcmpts.
COD tries. IT licensing the manufuc.
turc and sale of liquor is working with
God in the development of manhood let
us have more of it. do not think the
putting OF the traffic on such high
ground can be maintained by arguments
from theology or fact.
But you say further, that there is nc
law prohibiting theft. but man is
punished IL he steals That is dis.
tinction without n difference. Prohibi
tiOnists will be willing to have the law
conform to this style. No "thou shal,
not" would be allowed in it, but penal
ties affixed to the manufacture and sale
OF it. The fact is, Mr.. Editor, the body
OF our statute law is prohibitory.
You object further to prohibition or
the ground that it is a matter of cducn
tion. and people must be educated tc
see that liquor drinking is wrong
That is what we hold; and we say fur.
| thcr that tho law ShOnl5 bn tho Scbocl