The Bourbon news. [volume] (Paris, Ky.) 1895-19??, 1914-08-28


sible to divorce their argument from
i this M0hammedan text. This Moham
medan gospel runs through al pro
hibition sermons whether preached
by M0hammedan priests or Christian
ministers. 1t is the sum and sub
stance, the heart and soul of theil
philosophy
By the Koran / have established
tht fact that prohibition is Moham
medan in character; not Christian
With the Holy Bible have clinched
my affirmation that prohibition is
wrong in principle and un-Christan
in character. Take your choice be.
tween the Bible and the Koran, be-
tween Christ and Mahommet. Jesus
drank wine and made it for others
to drink. The Koran declares that
wine is abomination of the works
of Satan" MahOmmet was a prohi-
| bitiOnist; Christ was not.
l have now shown by irrefutable
logic, unanswerable reason, official
! records, and the sacred scriptures
that the prohibition of the manufac-
ture and use of intoxicating liquors is
| wrong in principle, un-Christian in
| character, and pOwerless as a rem
edy for intemperance. 1 have demon
strated that prohibition is:
| Contrary to reason, opposed to ma
ture, an insult to intelligence, de,
structive of human equality, a men
ace to manhood, based upon a false
premise, an immoral proposition, a
blow at the basis of all morality,
inimical to true religion, powerless
as remedy for intemperance, antag-
onistic to the divine order, and
that in principle temperance and pro-
hibition are eternal opposites.
No man ever brought more sweep
ing indictment against any cause than
have brought against prohibition to-
night. My charges will stand because
they are true. They cannot be over
thrown
When an argument is unanswerable
things. When unfair or dishonest,
they resort to personalities. What
they lack in logic they make up by
personal abuse of the speaker I'm
able to refute his argument they
seek to injure his character or rep
utation, and end by saying that he
made votes for their side.
When they are wise, they either as
sert that you said nothing worthy of
consideration, or they ignore you en-
tirely. But if they are otherwise"
they will expoae the weakness of
their cause by trying to demolish
truth, thing impossible. | shall call
attention briefly to some of the argu-
ments advanced by these people.
In reply to my charge that prohibit
ton is contrary to reason, you will
hear them say:
"Then why prohibit theft and muir
der?"
Because murder is wrong per Sc.
You do not have to repeat the act of
murder in order to become a MUIR
derer. Drinking becomes evil only
by abuse. Besides, killing is every
bOdy's business, but when you drink
| it is nobody's business but yours. A
law that concerns everybody can be
enforced, but you cannot enforce it
when it is nobody's business but
yours. That is the moral difference
between taking a drink and commit
| ting murder.
These pople appear to be unable to
see the moral distinction between
asking a man to have a friendly
drink and cutting his throat.
| l proved that prohibition is opposed
to nature, and that the thing that
makes prohibition a failure makes
man a success, and some of the drys
answer drunkenness is wrong. AS
do not advocate drunkenness, nothing
they can say on that proposition
meets my argument.
| proved prohibition to be a menace
to the development. of true manhood
In reply you will be told that some
people who drink are poor. They will
not tell you why an equal number of
people are poor who do not drink.
| l denounce prohibition as an i'm
moral proposition. For answer you
will be told that Windle was formerly
a prohibitionist. st. Paul was a
Pharisee at one time in his life. Any
man who opens his mouth before he
opens his mind is liable to become a
prohibitionist
| | proved that prohibition strikes a
blow at the basis of all morality
Some of our opponents answer by
charging that some liquor men are
immoral. So are some preachers, but
that is no argument against the
church, nor is it sane reason why
any man should condemn good
preachers.
| proved prohibition to be a menace
to the church. Some of my OppO-
nents will attempt to ridicule our
concern for the church, forgetting
that there has never been a Prohi
bition Christian nation on this earth
| | proved by the records that prohi
bition has utterly failed to stop
drunkenness, and in order to meet my
argument, it will be necessary to
show that more liquor we drink the
less liable we are to become drunk
When they sustain this contention in
the Court or Reason, agree to prove
by the same kind of logic that the
less man drinks the more drunken
he becomes.
! / proved by the Bible, the specific