Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1898-09-16
PRO PROHIBITION.

In these days when NermOnts prOhi-
bitory law is receiving numerous -hard
knocks from the state press for not pro-
hibiting at all, ii is Just as well to listen
to the arguments of the other side, and
coIresp ondent to the Burlington Free
Press makes the following strong state
ment for the law
In the defense of a cause there are few
dangers greater than that of attempting
to prove too much. If we claim every
thing for a measure. we are almost sure
to be proved wrong in some particular
and to have our whole cause endangered
il consequence.
This seems to me to be the difficulty we
are in with regard to prohibition. We
have allowed ourselves to undertake the
defense of it on the ground that it is the
one panacea for all the evils of intem-
perance. and we Immediately find our
selves wofully worsted in argument.
though we feel ourselves in the right un-
derneath.
In view of this, one of the most i'm.
portant things to bring out Just now is
what prohibition does not Undertake to
do.
In general it does not claim to be the
one essential and only remedy for intem-
perance, 1t may be essential, but it is
not the only essential in the suppression
Of that evil. To come to particulars, it
does not undertake to prevent absolutely
the consumption of liquors for intemper
ate purposes. There is not a word in the
whole statute to prohibit either drinking
or drunkenness. Undoubtedly the law is
intended to contribute to the suppression
of drunkenness, but it does so not by
prohibiting drinking but indirectly by
drying up the principal source from
which liquor is obtained. 1t does not
claim to prevent men from obtaining
liquor, for injurious purposes. If they
choose to send out of the state and get
liquor that does not itself prove prohibit
ton to be failure, for prohibition does
not undertake to prevent them from
doing so. furthermore it dose not under.
take to prevent absolutely the sale of
liquor for injurious purposes. 1t pro-
vides a place for its sale for mechanical
and medicinal purposes, and it leaves
the question of the proper medicinal use
largely to the judgement of the pur-
chaser. As long as he believes its use to be
beneficial to his health and does not use
it for drunkenness or carousal he is
within the limits of the law. To deter
mine with perfect eXactness Just when
the use of liquors is advisable is obvious
| ly beyond the province of law and must
be left to investigation, instruction and
moral suasion.
But we can 90 still further than this
and say that the principal object of the
law is not TO prevent all sales of liquor
outside of the agency. The law does of
course prohibit the sale of liquor at drug
stores for medicinal purposes, but it does
so not because it regards such sale in
| itself as any more evil than the same
transaction at the agency, but because if
the sale were permitted for any purpose
! it would Inevitably be carried on for other
her less iustifiable purposes as well, and
drug stores would soon degenerate into
/ saloons. Hence the sale of liquor at
drug stores for medicinal purposes,
though a technical violation of the law,
is no proof that its main object Is not at.
tanned.
We may even go one step further and
say that a considerable number of those
who support the law, so many indeed that
without their aid it could not be kept
on the statue book, have no very fixed
and strenuous objections to the serving
of wine or beer to guests at hotels when
called for. The reason why the permits
sion is not legally given is the same as
in the case of drug stores, only with still
greater emphasis; 1t would inevitably be
abused and the hotels become saloons