The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-11-09

the right In the one case and should DC
given the right by the State In the otner
case. You say 1T is a very serious chaiss
10 say this paper Is an apoiosist ior up
ping and bar-r0oms; but We shdn hVe
take the trouble even 20 deny the charge
for the double reason that none Out
Prohtbitonist could so understand our ar
ticle and as a Prohibitionist Is lncapaDie
OF seeing but one side OF this question,
there is no use in arguing the matter with
him" (By the way don't you pity the
teeming thousands OF obtuse fOlks-l am
not bit lonesome-and were you not en-
gagged in a discuss- a. with a Prohibition
ist ia the very editorial upon when
commeuted2 You then say l am NOT
after all ProhibitiOnist' (Which Is equiv
alent 10 saying there are no Prohibition
lists, as / hold In common with them),
and next you aver there is very httle
difference between myself and The
Times ION the question Of license and
next maintain that there is this material
difference, in that l have the idea that
In some sort Of way the law can make
men tesiperate and that liquor can be
sold for some purposes and not for all
purposes" your conclusion being that
the people Of any community without
infringing upon the rights OF others, have
the right TO say that no man shall sell or
drink liquor in such a way as TO make II
a public offence or a nuisance Now, IN
all seriousness, won't you help the Pro-
hibitonist who is so hard OF comprehen-
sion and who yet lis not Prohibitlonlst
after ALL" and whose position on license
Is very little different from that or Inc
Times" and yet whose Views are so ma
teriaiiy different in another aspect OF the
case. to comprehend your position with
entire correctness by answering without
circumlocution the following plain ana
fair questions?
%. In the present state of society 90
YOU think the individual right OF TIP
ping, even In moderation, exists or u IL
oua's duty 10 Yield such indulgence iOr
the general welfare?
fO. Are Won I'm favor Of licensing the
manufacture and sale Of liquors TO be
used as a beverage. as such license sys-
tenn Is now IN vogue?
CD. on the straight issue OF Prohibition
as interpreted by the Prohibition plat
form and promulgated by the deliver
ances OF leading religious denominations
would you throw your influence for or
against Prohibition
4D III. as admitted by You, 1.-THE people
OF any community, without Infringing
upon tho rights OF others. have the riSnt
TO say that no man shall drink or sen
liquor In such a way as 10 make IL
public offence or = nuisance nave not
the people OF the community az large
tho right 20 say mo same thing, and are
not the peopie themselves the Judge of
what constitutes a public offence or
nulsance2
do not ask for your reasons for your
view( although I would surely not OBJ
] ioct 10 seeding them). nor am / denying
yourt right 20 both entertain and maintain
your honest convictions. but the direct
answer to these questions would settle
| exactly how you stand in the premises.
Dlsclaiming any discourteous intention
| whatever l must say the lrohiDiuonlsts
| (wh0m YOU reason out 10 be mot fro-
| hibitionists after alp) rightful'y MAIN
tain that their arguments are quite gem
orally not fairly met and their position
NOT fairly represented. IL As surely beg
| glng the question, moreover, 90 claim
| that the Prohibition argument Is detec-
| tive because, forsooth, 10 admit the trai-
] nc in liquors for necessary purposes en-
| tails the beverage traffic also. We per-
] nit the traffic I'm poisonous drugs for
| necessary purposes, but forbid the Inn
J proper traffic therein. Laudanum Tor
| example, f. a medical drug, deadly pol
| sonous. and set r. necessity, the sale OF
| which IS legalized: but who would tnlnh
| OF licensing n iaudanum saloon wherein
men and women could secure 1t as
| beverage or for fits mere pleasing effect
on the senses? Dou you say that Is re
| striction" ana not prohibition lhen,
rs a rose by any other name Will sfneh
as sweet" II YOU favor the restriction
OF the liquor traffic 10 mechanical ana
| vrH COURSE
banishes the drinking saloon, you are
| n Prohibi-ionist though you may de-
nominate yourself a "restricter."
The shibboleth Of the Prohibition hosts
ia "The saloon Must Go. for the legal
| perm ission Of the saloon causes chleny
| the large demand for the large supply
of the beverage which results IN sucn
| dirofuf destruction I'm the bodies ana
souls OF some men, The State tempts
mon TO engage I'm the traffic for none
| tqrv consideration. Not that the STATE
or the liqu0r dealer really desires the In
Jury Of society, but the State sancllons
| bv law the traffic and nen LAY thelr H-
] canse for conducting as legitimate ias
ror ,a tho law can make Sc SOD a busi-
! ness as any other kind. and the trainc
| is engaged IN by thousands noiWitn-
! standing and despite the fact that eX-
perience has demonstrated that 10 results
I'm tho greatest possible injury to So
| clety.
| While not coudonilg his act by any
| means. I am unwiliing-and have al-
| WAYS been unwiliing-to conhne my tenn
| Derance efforts TO anathemauzing the
| liquor dealer and passiyeiy acquiescin5
! In the safes sanctioning his business.
| The saloonlst is the license-voters agent
] and no amount Of clubbing, evasion and
| false logic can overthrow that PROPOSE
! lion. II the license system did not exist
| thousands OF men nov engaged IN the
| Houor business would be I'D other aVo-
| cations. the gildel saloons would nor
| entice and entrap che youth and hover
OF our land AMI there would he thou
| sands OF happy hearts and homes where
now sorrow relgns supreme. The state
| win yet come 20 recognize the eternal
truth that "what IS morally wrong can
| never be politically right"
w. N. BICKERs
| Richmond Va, Nov. z, 1898.
\ Silver Victory.
There has not been n sciutiilo Of evil
| 1.,,o from, the sources Of All evidence.