Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1901-03-29
BISHOP HALL IN FAVOR OF LOCAL OPTION LAW
The Argument Of the Burlington Free Press for Prohibition in Re
plying to the Bishop.

At the time the meeting was called ia
Rutland for the formation of a Local on
ton League, Percival W. Clement. tho
leading spirit i'm the movement, wrote a
letter to Bishop HAN asking him to at
tend. THIS invitation was not accepted
by the Hshup, but he wrote It letter m
which certain expressions were used
which led the Burlington Free Press to
ask him Tor his views on the prohibitory
law. Bishop Han answered i'm letter
which was printed in the Free Press un
Tuesday of this week with an extended
editorial reply 10y the Free Press, both
of which are given i'm fun:
You are good enough TO ask my opiu-
ion on the present prohibitory law, and in
particular that would specify the con-
siderations which led me i'm my letter to
Mr. Clement to speak of it's folly and
mischief Briefly my grounds are these:
!. Experience has shown me that the
law does not prohibit. / myself have had
to deal with repeated cases of drunken
ness, some of them nabitual unhindered,
and to certain extent | believe provoke
Cd or aggravated by the existing law.
Election uay i'm Burlington Cwheu. if eve.
the uninitiated might expect the law to bc
enforced presents ocular demonstration
of the futility of the law.
.. Prohibition drives underground the
mischief which At seeks to cure making
ii more difficult to deal with the evil. ami
impossible to regulate the trade. as tor
instance in the quality of the liquor sold.
5. The present law leads. / believe, i'm
many cases. - heavier drinking. in clubs
and at nome, liquor being purchased m
larger quantities than would be the case
if it were possible 10 purchase at a res
taurant glass of wine or peer.
t. Especially perhaps among the young.
prohibition provokes resistance. Stolen
drinks, not only waters. seem to possess
an added swee,ne
if all ,f 1D ma h.. i'm
toNicants. save Tor medicinal purposes
were i'm itself wrong these two Considera-
lions 6 and A would be of no weight
D. Few persons, | suppose, with any
knowledge of It's actual working will deny
that the law as il exists is connected with
a vast amount of hypocrisy, ON the par,
of buyers sellers. and officials
May not this hypocrisy. being deeper
and more widespreading evil, be u
greater mischief than the ntemperanoe
which it is sought to check?
s. Prohibition ny many of its earnest
advocates is connected with the notion
that all use lsaVe for medicinal purposes
of drink, that in excess may be intoNicat-
ing, is wrong. The use of such drink is
in itself no more wrong than the use OF
tobacco. In either case it is the misuse
which we have to guard against Doubt
less with many persons total abstinence
Qrom WINE or tobacco may be safest and
best. To attempt tn enforce TINS ON all
persons is to manufacture AN artificial
sin, with the risk OF leading many persons
to think lightly of what is absolutely
wrong uor instance, drunnennessD, be
cause they have come to recognize that
there is no real sin in what they had been
taught to regar. as equally wicked.
:. This suggests VIVA, seems to me one
of the most serious objections to the pro
hibitorY law. 1t tends to break down ,n.'
sense of obligation in the case of all law.
human or divine Here some one says,
lis law which is not enforced to which
no moral obligation belongs (beyond tn.
fact that II IS a law Wen is commonly
disregarded; way should not other laws
he disregarded likewise Uhe 9TH or ,tn
or Sth commandment, for instancel?"
s. once more our existing prohibtory
law | consider foolish and misChieNouS.
because it is largely an attempt on the
part of one set of people (our country
foIkl to legislate for another set of peo-
pie Tin our larger villages and cities.
They enact a law which, whether wise or
unwise in country districts, cannot be en-
forced IN the larger places.
You will understand, Sir, | feel sure.
whether you agree with me or not, that
il is in the interests of Temp rance. as al
righteousness in general, that | urge
these considerations, IN reply To your
challenge. | recognize To the lull th"
evils of intemperance, and the right ami
duty of the community to guard, SO tar
may be, its citizens from what II 4
menace to the community as well as IL
the individual. | would gladly welcome
any well-considered scheme for avoiding
the evils attending the practically unr"-
stricted sale of liquor which may be se"l
in some neignboring states. But ! cad
not think that the practical experience
of Vermont, New Hampshire or Maine Is
in favor of state prohibition law.
Faithfully yours,
ARTHUR c. y. HALL,
Bishop of Vermont.
burlington, March IS, 1871.