The wageworker. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1904-????, 1908-03-14


ter of recent date, addressed to me
as editor of The WageworlSer, and
printed in my humble little labor
paper on March {. You mote with
surprise and regret" that have taken
an adverse position with reference to
the "no-license" campaign in Lincoln.
.>termit me to reply to this by stating
that 1 note with surprise and regret
that you have taken what | honestly
believe to be an adverse position with
reference to the speediest and bess
solution of very vexatious question
Temperance.
You further state that Gin another
editorial l seek to belittle the whole
movement for temperance reform by
legislative action by carrying the
principle to an absurd length"
assure you that if have carried this
or any other temperance reform prin-
ciple to an absurd length l have
but followed the example of others
VINO go 10 an absurd length in their
lenunciation of those who may differ
from them in matters of policy. When
you say that l seek to belittle this
whole movement for temperance re-
FORM" by legislative enactment or
otherwise, you merely follow the usual
logic of those who believe all guilty
OF criminal folly who do not agree
with them have yet to learn that
irfallibility is can attribute of either
pi eachers or prohibitionists.
There are those who insist that
when they have voted to close the
licensed saloon their responsibility
ends, but my observation Of social
and economic conditions leads me to
believe that that Is merely the be-
ginning OF their responsibility, and
that they are verp apt to be premium
strikers.
Doubtless you know among You:
rarishioners many parents who shirk
upon the Sunday school the work
of religious instruction which parents
owe their children. There are like
wise those who would shirk their per-
senal responsibility for genuine tenn
rerance work by securing the enact
Iaent of prohibitory law and then
forgetting straightway that law en-
actment and law enforcement are
vastly different things.
must confess that ministerial
logic is very often beyond my COM
lrehension. You cite the fact that the
law does seek to prohibit the sale
OF adulterated flour and sour bread,
and then offer that fact as an argu-
ment for the prohibition of the sale
Of liquor. But that is beside the ques-
ron. Because adulterated flour is
made and because sour bread is baked.
has not yet led any reformers to stand
forth and demand the prohibition of
-four manufacture or break baking.
OF course / am in favor of pure food
l;ws-and | am also in favor of sane
temperance agitation. Being forty-five
years of age, newspaper man of a
quarter of a centurys experience, the
recipient of fair education and the
possessor of average commonsense, |
am OF the opinion that l have as much
right to assume that my position on
tie temperance question is right as
you or your ultra-prohibition friends
have to assume that your position
is right. l would, ii / could, wipe
out the liquor business tomorrow
or today. But / cannot do it, and
know | cannot do 1t Neither can
Z you; neither can both of us. But
Y can help those who work by edu-
.ational methods to minimize the
ines. There is not man in Lincoln
Who would not complain before the
court If he saw man commit a bur-
gary. There is not one in a hundred
who would enter complaint if he
knew Of an instance of violation of
the liquor law. Perhaps your expert
erce in prosecuting the Riggs case.
or your observation of the result of
the Woempler trial, will lead you to
admit that I am well within the truth
when make that statement. And
why this difference? Simply because
men are educated up to the burglary
question, and they are not educated
up to the same point on the illicit
vending of liquor. Your Sunday base
ball prosecution is another case in
point. Bless your soul, Brother Bat
ten, you cannot enforce law which
lcgalizes the liquor traffic. Now tell
ME, pray. how you will enforce a
law that prohibits 1t entirely. I, and