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


destroy the investment of any man
without the payment of a just indem-
nifty.
Some socialists argue that it would
be right to cOnfiscate the property
of capitalists, on the ground that the
working classes created the wealth
now in possession of the rich, and
were robbed. They hold that it would
be morally right to take this property
without paying indemnity. They have
a better moral argument than the pro-
hibitiOnists, because prohibitiOniSt5
cannot claim that they created the
wealth now in possession of the
liquor men unless they confess 10
having imbibed more booze than we
have given them credit for
If you take my purse, that is theft.
If you take my life, you call it muir
der. But when you take my liberty,
that is prohibition. The brave in
every age of the worlds history have
been willing to give up their property
for their lives, and then surrender
their lives for liberty. If it is immoral
TO take my purse, thing of little
value, 1t cannot be moral to take the
thing OF highest value-a mans lib
erty.
We reject prohibition not because
we want to make drunkards, but be.
cause prohibition it an immoral pro-
position.
Our opponents try to prove that
prohibition is entirely moral because
the United States abolished slavery
without indemnifying the slave
owner. To make that argument good
they'll have to show that there is no
moral difference between selling a hui
man being into slavery against his
will, and selling willing man a scut-
tie of suds. He will have to prove
that there is no moral difference be-
tween owning a case of beer and a
chattel slave.
Undermines the
9asis of Morality.
ProhlDlt1On is not only an immoral
proposition, but it strikes at the basis
OF all morality. This is serious
charge, and one that should be weigh
ed with careful consideration. NJ
principle or movement ever had a
more damaging charge brought
against. If l sustain this Indictment
honest prohibitionists will be com
PEELED to abandon their position. In
determining the morality of cues
ZION OF this Kind reason is the highest
authority
Instead of relying upon iogmatic
assertion to prove my charge | want
to ask this audience two questions
The only possible answer will reveal
the basis OF all morality:
Gould God credit you with moral
lty for doing something / compel vo,
t. do?" ~
hear every person in this audi
CAGE answer no.
Gould God credit me with moralit,
Tor leaving something undoae which
you prevented me from doing?'
Again the verdict is unanimous ant
the answer is no.
THESE questions and answers prove
that freedom of choice, or persona
hberty, constitutes the basis of al
morallty. In seeking to DESTROY
freedom OF choice and drive a dag
ger into the heart of personal libert,
prohibition underminds the basis Of
all morality.
You cannot have morality withou;
personal responsibility. You cannon
have personal responsibility without
personal liberty This is the rocl
upon which the prohibition shiI
breaks to pieces.
When you can prove that waite,
does not run down hill you will be
able to show that prohibition does
lot undermine the basis of morals.
! We antagonize prohibition not be
cause we want to run a distillely, bu
because it strikes blow at the basis
of all morals. The drys will attemp,
to show that prohibition is moral
that 1T is right in principle because
God said Thou shalt not kill" I'm
like making, Buying, drinking and
selling liquor, killing is never proper
Drinking becomes evil, through the
abuse OF natural right. 1t is NOT
wrong per Sc. Murder is wrong
You must drink to excess to become
a, drunkard. 1t is not necessary tc
kill to excess in order to become 2
murderer. Killing involves anothe,
mans life. Whether you kill is every
body's business. 1t is not everybody
business whether you take a drink
God prohibits the thing that in itself
is wrong-that does not become evil
by abuse or excess. He prohibits
nothing that becomes evil by excess
In every such case temperance, reg
ulatiOn, is the divine order.
PoWerless as
Remedy for Intemperance.
/ Prohibition is not only an immoral
proposition, tending co undermine the
foundation of morals, destructive OF
human equality, and contrary to rea
son, but it is powerless as a remedy
for lntemperance.
THIS is shown by che nature of the
case and the character of the law in
question. Temperance is a virtue that
cannot be impaired by law. Like
love, it cannot be promoted by force.
When it comes to binding love a
spiders web is as potent as a triple
chain of steel.
Law may forbid a thing that is
wrong, per Sc, but it cannot prev ent
! hn n <>f