Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1902-06-02
EVANGELIST HILLYER WRITES
OF THE PROHIBITION ISSUE

To the Editor of The Journal:
The demand for some sort of prohibit
ton began 100 years ago. The earlier tax
acts were designed simply to restrict the
sale of strong drink. These acts had the
effect, doubtless, of retarding the growth
of prohibition sentiment; but in 1916 the
Maine liquor law was passed.
In 1872 the government (and by the
word government l intend to include all
the governing bodies involved imposed
the war taxes on the manufacture and
sale of strong drink. When the govern
ment began that business 1t became CO.
partner of the liquor man. 1t went to work
at once, deliberately to making and selling
drink to its people for profit. 1t became
for all moral purposes as completely iden-
titled with the drink traffic as any saloon
proprietor in Atlanta is today, and the
government has continued for these 40
years to make and sell TO its people the
drink that destroys.
In enacting the drink revenue license
laws the government has thrown around
the drink business its strong arm and has
protected those who act under its license
from the consequence of their traff1c. The
government entered upon this policy be-
cause people had found out that the bust
ness was somehow demanding legal re-
straint. Instead of declaring the business
unlawful on account of it's evil deeds. the
government attempted to impose the con-
dition of things by making a confessed evil
a lawful thing, for a money consideration
The business was wrong, but the govern
ment legalized the wrong for the pur-
poses OF gain. 1t sold its virtue for excess
sive revenues, and confessed the I'M
holiness of the device by putting an occu-
patton tax on the business that was en-
tirely out of proportion to the taxes i'm
posed on other lines Of business. There
never has been and never can be any sort
of moral defense of the position taken by
the government in this matter. 1t was a
national sin. a fragrant violation of all
moral and economic laws, a defiance Of
the moral teachings of the Bible and the
moral sense of its Christian people. 1t left
the field of politics and invaded the field
of morals and on the sacred grounds Of
moral distinction set up the abomination
tecting flag over 1t. The war was on us.
Our hearts protested against the wrong
but we could do nothing
After the war in our own state. the leg
islature was confronted with the LIQUOR
question and the public school question at
the same time. They knew the liquor rev.
enue was corrupt and polluted, but with
view of making it popular they appro-
priated the proceeds of the liquor bust
ness to the support of the public schools.
They made every parent in the land a di-
rect beneficiary of the liquor traffic and a
distributor Of its profits. Every man since
that date who has voted for men that
have perpetuated that liquor tax has been
deliberately prosecuting the business of
drink selling to educate his children.
Until three years ago 1 was one of
them. My representative in the legisla-
ture voted the annual tax act every year
that authorized the licensing of liquor
houses in several counties of the state,
and my very children have enjoyed 90
state and paid for by that blood money
The local option law of 1885 had no
claim to moral virtue, except on the prin-
cipal of religious selfshness, illustrated in
the prayer of the old man, who said:
"Oh! Lord, bless me and my wife,
My son. John. and his wife,
Us four
And no more"
The man who is local optionist today
and opposed to state prohibition. is in
fact in favor of liquor selling. He is a
liquor seller; he wants the government to
keep up its copartnership in the business,
| and divide the profits with him. This is
the attitude of every man who opposes
Mr.. Query in this campaign. There is no
middle ground If your country is as
dry as bone; If you oppose Mr.. GVerry's
state prohibition idea, you are simply in
favor of selling liquor, not at your own
/
you would not tolerate that-but you
would sell it in Fulton county and draw
your share of the profits from there.
The prohibitionists demand 1t; that the
government shall withdraw from. the
drink business; that may be done in
Georgia by simply abolishing all liquor
taxes in the state and all dispensary prof
fits and leave the local option law to
operate without the bias or bribery of the
prospective liquor revenue. If the gov
eminent ceases to license the business
then /, as a free citizen, cease to be a
liquor seller. So long as the government
continues it's licensing OF 1t, continuoe
to be liquor seller.
In this view of the case 1t is mani
fest that the 'blind tiger argument has
no weight. If the business be made un-
lawful the only wrong doors in the blind
tiger trade are the immediate seller and
buyer, but under the license system. we
are all liquor sellers, whether we mean
TO be or not
Just here the fact becomes manifest
that the state by this iniouitous and
wicked system Of liquor revenue is max
ing every church member a dram seller.
| The state has invaded the grounds of the
church, religious liberty is restrained, be-
cause we are required to participate in
the profits of the liquor business, or keep
our children from the public schols. Thus
every pulpit in the land is appealed to
TO raise the voice OF protest against this
unholy invasion of the religious liberty of
the people.
Religious liberty has always resisted
politicaI incroachments. 1t is doing that
! Thing now and 1t will as it has always
done. secure it's demands.
]. L. d. HILLYER.
Evangelist Georgia Prohibition Associa-
ton.