The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1911-08-24
PROHIBITION AND THE DECALOGUE

10 THE EDITOR OF THE PORTLAND
PRESS: The Portland Argus of this date
brings Cardinal Gibbons into the stand ii
answer to Mrs. Stevens absolutely true
and impregnable statement as to who
will be arrayed against the temperance
forces in the present campaign.
He says:
Il am persuaded that it is practically
impossible to put prohibition in effect in
any large community.
Laws like prohibition that are certain
to be violated had best not be made, for
incessant violation draws down upon
them disrespect
Very well? Here are some laws that
are certain to be violated and, accord
ing to the good cardinal of the Argus.
Had best not be made
Laws against:
/. Theft.
2. Violence
5. Adultery.
i. Prostitution.
5. Game trespass (game laws)
6. Burglary.
7. Forgery.
8. Polygamy.
9. Bigamy
10. Perjury.
H. Libel.
u, Trust (Trust-laws.)
Is. Murder.
IA. All laws founded on the decalogue.
Is. The decalogue itself
49, All law.
(For if law was not certain to be vio-
lated" there would be no lawD
Why abolish only the prohibition law
when it sins in such good company?
May | say that it seems as if the
Argus We're not very wise in its choice
of witnesses. 1t quotes Obadiah Gard
ner, whose anti-prohihition sentiment so
publicly heralded only emphasizes the
fact that the grange of which he was
once head is out with an incorporating
and ringing call to battle in favor of pro-
hibition.
DR.. Lyman Abbott, whom we all love,
though realizing that he cannot know
everything just right on every subject, is
In the witness box to say what every
body has known for years, that he does
not believe in prohibition. But see how
he begs the question, as quoted by your
contemporary:
Local self-government ''means that
the people of each locality are to deter
or chiefly that locality" Exactly! But
or chiefly any one locality, any more
than does prostitution, or gambling, or
any such question? Is there any differ
ence as to State legislation? 1t was un-
wise, and, indeed, also rather unkind of
the Argus toward the distinguished gen.
tlemen it has recently pictured, and
whom mostly we reSpect very mich to
drag them into the lime-light as being on
the side of the class of people it adver-
tlses so widely every day in Mrs.
Stevens words, as 'arrayed against the
temperance forces!" Mrs. Stevens gen
orally abstained from 'tnanling Names
and simply classed them as called for
ces, the Argus seems determined to let
US know them all by name! And, by the
way, it must be doing so under very
stern sense of duty in view of its con-
servative objections to the interference
of outsiders in the campaign!
1t may be noted in this connection that
the secretary Of the N. P. L. S. G. L.
objects to being classed as 'allies,' but
if these much respected public men and
the 'Iocal-Self Government league
are fighting on the same side as the liq-
uor people and criminal classes for the
repeal of the prohibition law, and are
not allies in the common use of the
term, what are they? They are in bad
company anyway.
But to return to our original question
--''If Cardinal Gibbons statement is
valid, is it not valid against every law
ever enacted? Yours truly,
ROBERT G. HARBUTT.
Buxton, Me.