The citizen. [volume] (Berea, Ky.) 1899-1958, 1908-12-10
et''5j1IAEfaiI)!Ig|I|llEb
SF. -EgN -
WAS THE BISHOP RIGHT
Evidence That Restrictive Legislation
Is Not EnslaVement.

Some years ago when there was
strong movement in England In favor
OF a more strict regulation of the
liquor traffic. some fayoring out and
out prohibition, one of the bishops de-
clared himself opposed to the me-
ures advocated because he would RI
er see England drunk and than en-
shaved. His view was that men should
not be forced into sobriety and that
any legislation that compelled men to
give up drink would be oppressive.
Men should be left free to use IT or
not as they pleased. II they were
compelled TO stop using 1t you made
slaves of them. He would rather see
a nation OF drunkards than a nation
OF slaves.
This utterance has often been quot
ed, and by many people has been re-
garded as containing great wisdom.
Is It presumptuous to declare now
that IT was a most unwise utterance,
and that It will stand any careful con-
sideration? asks Temperance. Let us
look and see.
First of all there is a wide space be
tween slavery and drunkenness. II
the latter is put down It does not fol
low that the nation is to be enslaved,
for there can be no restriction of the
liquor traffic. severe or mild. without
the consent OF the people. The ma
jority of the people have to approve or
condemn such legislation before II
can be made effective.
Then restrictive legislation is not
something new, for the state urges
the passage OF very stringent laws
whenever public health and public
safety are put in peril.
II II can be shown that the liquor
traffc has become a menace to the
welfare OF society. there can be no
question as to the propriety of re-
strictive legislation.
IL II can be shown 20 be so injuri-
Gus as TO imperil a large number In
every community and TO add to the
expense OF government, and II a ma
jority OF the people decide to put it
down completely who will question
their right 10 do SOL
Suppose that the most radical pro-
hibitory measures prevail I'm any
place. who are enslaved by such meas
ures?
Certainly not the majority who
favored the law, not the minors whom
guardians are eager to keep from de-
basing influences. and not that large
number who are Indifferent one way
OF the other.
Is II the habitual drunkard?
Under previously existing laws he
can be shut up in Jail now for intern
perance and deprived OF his liberty
for weeks and months. II is no more
like slavery TO prevent his having the
drink than to shut him up for making
bad use OF II later on.
The parties who are likely to cry
out slavery" are those who are in
the liquor business, and also that por.
ton OF the community who claim the
right TO use intoxicants as they please,
In large or in small quantities.
The former regard legislation gen.
eTally as interfering Win tnelr Ousl-
ness, and the latter think their per
sonal liberty is abridged.
The whole matter comes back to the
starting point that the majority must
rule. If the majority believe II is for
the best interests OF the community
to restrict or to abolish the liquor
traffic. that then becomes the law and
all must obey. There is no slavery in
obeying law. II one does not like a
law let him labor TO have It repealed,
but while II is the law he is expected
to keep IT, II is simply absurd TO raise
the cry OF slavery" just because laws
may be enacted which some do not
like