Belding banner. (Belding, Mich.) 1889-1918, 1909-01-14
5'aAAGG5S(BglI'e,,s,6'5
WAS y ,E BISHOP RIGHT
eS'9e"0s That Restrictive Legislation
Is Not Enslavement.

some years ago when there was q
Strong movement In England In favor
OF a more strict regulation of the
liquor traffic, some favoring out and
out prohibition, one of the bishops de-
clared himself opposed to the meas
ures advocated because he would rath.
ey 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 II or
not as they pleased. II they were
compelled to stop using it 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 1t 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 1t can be shown that the liquor
traffic has become a menace to the
welfare of society, there can be nc
question as to the propriety OF re
strictive legislation.
IL 1t can be shown to be so injuri
Gus as to imperil large number In
every community and to add to the
expense of government, and If ma
jority of the people decide to put II
down completely, who will question
their right to do so?
Suppose that the most radical pro
hibitory measures prevail in 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
or the other.
Is 1t 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. 1t Is no more
like slavery to prevent his having the
drink than to shut him up for making
bad use of it 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
orally as interfering with their bust
ness, and the latter think their per
sonal liberty is abridged.
The whole matter comes back to the
starting point that the majority mus
rule. If the majority believe it is fol
the best interests of the community
to restrict or to abolish the liquor
traffic, that then becomes the law anC
all must obey. There is no slavery II
obeying law. If one does not like {
law let him labor to have 1t repealed
but while 1t is the law he is expected
to keep it. 1t is simply absurd to raise
! the cry of slavery" just because laws
may be enacted which some do no
like.