The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1909-04-21
ANOTHER QUESTION OF MORAL.
11Y.

ANOTHER QUESTION OF MORAL
ITY.
1t is admitted that statewide prohi-
bition in Missouri would wipe out at
least 100000 900 in property and
throw out of employment tens OF
thousands of workmen who have spent
many years in gaining a knowledge Of
their trade and who would be at a loss
to find another vocation. A moon
sinner running an illicit still in de-
fiance of all law and public consent
can soon master enough Of the crude
process to turn out fiery liquid OF
uncertain strength and purity, but the
art of brewing, which is older than
history, is an occupation demanding
q great degree OF knowledge and skill
as we'll as large plants and invest
ments of capital. This business today
10 on q legal basis, as 1t has been from
immemorable times. Its development
has heretofore been encouraged in
large communities. It has been In
vited in as standard form OF indus
try. footing it has always had in
Europe. In that continent it is rec.
ognized AZ Z part of the social organi-
xation and il not assaile6 on moral or
other grounds. 1t is subject to regc-
lation, but It's destruction there is un-
thought of.
To notify the owners Of this proper
ty in Missouri and the multitude Of
workmen who support themselves and
families In connection with 1t that it
Is under the ban Of the law, and that
property In 1t must look to some other
trade and dispose of their prescribed
possessions as best they can. would
seem to the average mind to trench
upon some powerful considerations Of
morality. How far this huge eviction
in business would cut into all business
and property values, and how deeply
1t would disturb the entire field of Ia
Dor and the sense of justice upon
which 1t broadly rests, is a question
that time alone could answer. Not
one trade alone is directly interested.
Numerous trades are interrelated in
every extensive industry. To put of
the day Of destruction three years OF
five years. would soften the blow, but
little. Who would open the doors to
workmen trained only In an ostracised
trade unless ~ raw manual laborers
Who would buy property especially
built for operations placed under the
interdict Of the law in the name OF
morality, without allowing weight Ia
the fact that question Of morality
can have more aspects than one?
Was not slavery abolished without
compensation 1t Is asked. Tho ides
Of emancipation with compensation
was steadily rejected In the slave
ct favorable response to the idea
President Lincoln declared that be
would save the Union with or withou,
slavery. In the second year OF the
war he pointed out In figures that wal
was costing more than would the fres-
ing Of the slaves with full compensa-
ton to their owners. II peace could
have been had upon those term.
President Lincoln and the party be
hind him. which embraced war dsmo-
Gratis - well as republicans. You'd
have met the proposition more than
half way. Slavery was immoral, says
he world today. But when It exist,
I'd peaceably In the United States the
feeling among the people was that i,
involved certain property rights with
! moral claim. The abolition OF sla-
very came Is an unavoidable military
, aecessity. but only after due warning
rhe analogfes in this case are slight
rhe existence of the nation was Al
stake. Great armies were clashinl
Ii terrible battles. with slavery mi
aor issue compared with the preserva
ION OF the Union. and the slaveholc
m. with arms In their hands. opposed
ne Union. even with compensation fol
heir property. There II no offer o!
compensation among the statewide
,rohfbitionistS Of Missouri. They
,eem to think that the whole question
u morality 10 confined to = single de
,tructive blow.-St Louis Globe-Demo.
srat.