Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1901-04-26
LOCAL OPTION VS.. PROHIBITION.
Discussed in a Joint Debate During
the Session Of the Vermont Metho.
dist Conference,


Lyndonville, a joint debate ON local
option VS.. prohibition was held under
the auspices of the Conference Tenn
perance society. The debate took
place in the Congregational church
and there was a large attendance.
Rev. George l.. story Of Milton pre-
sided. Rev. George Elliot Cooley,
pastor of the Universalist church in
Rutland spoke for local option, and
c. j. Ferguson. a lawyer of Burlington,
for prohibition. Mr.. Cooley appeared
as the exponent of the recently form
ed Vermont Local Option league and
prefaced his argument with a state
ment of the principals of the league.
These. he said in substance, are that
the league faVors the repeal of the
present prOhibitury law and the adUp-
ton of local option in its place. The
league holds that neither the selling
nor drinking of liquor is a common
law crime; that the control Of the
traffic should be changed from the
state to the individual towns, and that
with the law reconstructed so as to
conform to American ideas of gov
eminent, the way will be open for the
work of the churches and the teachers
to encourage temperate habits on the
part of individuals. The league be-
lieves that a local option law is a con
dition precedent to the effective teach
ing of temperance and is doing what
it can to secure such a law"
Mr.. Cooley restated the usual objec-
tions to the prohibitory law: that it is
not strictly enforced, that it cannot
be enforced because public sentiment
is not behind it, and that it dissipates
the energies of sincere temperance
reformers by directing all their efforts
toward police duty instead of the in
culcation of temperance principles and
habits. His main argument was di-
reCted to the principles of democratic
liberty which he sees to be involved
in this question. Our prohibitOry
law he said, lis based upon a lack
of faith in the people. The corner
stone of our democracy is that all gov
ernments shall be by the consent OF
the governed. There is no price too
dear to pay for liberty. Patrick
Henry was right when he said, Give
me liberty or give me death. If sub
hitting the question Of the mainte-
nance of the prohibitory law upon our
statute books to the people meant the
| establishment OF saloon upon every
corner under local option regulations,
it is not too dear a price to pay for
liberty; and those who say it is do not
look deep enough. They do not have
faith enough in the moral integrity
of the people to know that if saloons
were thus established the good moral
sense of the communities could be
trusted to close them as soon after
the evil showed itself as they could
organize some means to express them
selves"
This was the essential point in Mr..
Cooley's argument: the right OF the
people IN each community to rule, and
faith III the people that they would
rule wisely. Upon this basis of ar
gument Mr.. Cooley denied the right
of the state to control the action OF
| the separate towns in the matter OF
| the sale of liquors and would leave
| the question to be settled by each
| town for itself. Carried to its logical
| result the same argument would, as
| we think, finally forbid the right OF
| the majority in any town to control
III this way the action OF the minority
The argument of Mr.. Ferguson was
along the lines Of showing the degra-
| dation of manhood and the debauch-
cry of all our social relations which
| the liquor traffic carries with ii. If
| you want the traffic to continue, but
| under some restraint. and TO make
it reimburse the government i'll some
| measure for the waste which always
| results from its existence, and are viii
| ling to suffer the greater part of the
| results yourselves; if you are satisfied
| to leave the weak without help to be
come weaker, the poor without hell
to become poorer; If you are willing
that the temptation of all temptations
most delusive shall unyeilingly un
blushingly stare Vermont youth in the
| face; if you are content to place the
1 future in the hands of such men az
carry on the liquor traffic. then
would most confidently recommend tC
favorable consideration some form
of a license law. But, on the con
trary, if the end desired is as near as
possible to stop the traffic in intoXicat
ing liquors, beg to say that the only
method known to logic, reason anC
common sense is to prohibit it. TC
say that you can come nearer stopping
the doing of a thing by permitting il
than you can by prohibiting it, is q
good deal of a shock to the norma
|
thing comes down to this: Do we de
sire to destroy the liquor traffic, or dc
we simply want to exercise it just
enough to keep it in vigorous condi
tion?".
Tothe charge that prohibition does moi
prohibit, Mr.. Ferguson gave the usua
answer that so also the laws against
robbery, gambling and adultery do moi
absolutely prohibit those offenses.
On the question of creating an ar
tificial sim" and of confusing mora
obligations raised by Bishop Hall il
his letter, Mr.. Ferguson said: "WheI
we take into consideration the uni
| versally acknowledged diseasepro
'ducing qualities of liquor upon man
kind, and, in the light of expert
ence, the imminent danger that the
moderate use will develop into the i'm
moderate and end in the ruin of indi
vidual citizen, body, soul; | say
clergy, bishop, or archbishop, nOtwith
standing, that liquor drinking is, il
itself wrong, in itself a sin, a sin PEI
Sc, against God, against family, agains
the government. Has a man tn,
right without necessity to attempt t
cross track in the teeth of a rushinl
railroad train? | deny it. To do so i,
a sin against his God; thus recklessly
to expose this temple of the Twins
God, and the life he has put into il
| for our care and DEVELOPMENT is a sin