Evening journal., 1917-10-22

absence Is que 10 the ldOl tnol PRONE
bitionists refuse TO defend their PROPOSE
tion on the ground that it is right, Chris
tian in character, and cure for the
evils Of intemperance, unless we agree
to give their orator the right TO close
the debate insisting that the negative
close the debate, contrary to law and
custom, they knew that we would re-
fuse and this would relieve them from
the responsibility of submitting their
spurious theories 20 the acid test of de-
bate.
When the 'Drys" issued their first
shallenge theY fully understood the rights
of the affirmative. They called upon
US TO take the negative but demanded
the right to open and close the debate
In our counter challenge, we agreed
to take the affirmative which would
give us the right 20 open and close the
debate but the "Drys' refused 70 ac-
cord to us that right and declined to
accept our challenge unless we agreed
TO surrender the privilege which always
belongs to. the affirmative.
This quibbling trickery has not de-
ceived any intelligent person. IL was
used as a means of escape and in the
hope that some people would be deluded
with the idea that the "Wetsn refused
to debate with them. / am here TO
attack prohibition on the highest ground
beneath the stars. Let no person ina
CINE that we are opposed TO temperance.
Temperance permits the use Of alco-
holic liquors in moderation Prohibi-
tion forbids. The two principles are
antagonistic-eternal opposites. Both
cannot be right. Every argument for
temperance is an argument against pro-
hibition.
Defining prohibition, John Stuart
Mil saysi
ut is a theory Of social rights moth
ing short of this-that il is an absolute
social right Of every individual that
every other Individual shall act In every
respect exactly az he ought, that who
eoeyer fails thereof in the smallest par.
tlcular violates my social rights and en-.
titles me to demand from the Legislature
the removal of the grievance. SO mon,
strous a principle Is far more dangerous
than any single interference with liberty
There is no violation of liberty which II
would not justify"
This is very good statement Of what
prohibition really is. II strips the prin
ciple to the bone, revealing its un-Ameri.
can, oppressive despotic character. Such
principle must be wrong. The princi-
PIE OF prohibition proceeds on the theory
that the State should establish a stan.
dard for the wealSling and compel the
strong to live under IL.
The prohibition idea rests upon the
theory that you may destroy the use
OF thing because some people abuse
their rights TO use it.
On this. principle you could abolish
the use of money. The abuse of
money is a prolific source of crime
and misery. If the prohibition prin.
ciple Is sound, you could tear every
mans tongue from his throat.
In the 3rd chapter of st. James,
verses and Q, we read:
The tonge is of fire. world of
iniquityi so is the tongue among our
members that 1t dehleth the whole
body and setteth on fire the course of
nature; and It is set on FIRE of hell
II is an unruly evil full of deadly
poisonj Herewith bless we even the
Father, and Herewith curse we men. {"
Like liquor, fire and water. the
tongue has a dual nature. It's use is
proper. Infinite evil results from its
abuse. This, however, would not JUS
tify the state in denying citizens the
right of speech.
The prohibition principle can never
DC reconciled with common sense or
reason. If it is right to prohibit a
sn because its use is abused, il
~ouo be necessary to prohibit all
SOM livery good thing IS abused by
me utter absurdity of prohibition
VII n occur to every reasonable person
stops TO consider that soc;at,.
iuss.s You with liberty 40 81 90
Is wrong in itself. Goa tr,,sta
stoto noerty TO go 70 He'll. Tho
80 you with liberty 10 co,,,
lie and murder "a evil Il, a.
does not become evil nv, ~
t~,,st ,' sne p,ohoitionists refuse A.
buy glass of beer. sen OF
Again, the principle Of proh,,,.,.
Is shown to be utterly WRONG b .aos,ol
II seeks to forfeit one mans lNnass
because of another mans act. m
idea is utterly absurd. No man Hvir
can defend monstrous princip
like that.
God prohibits evil only. He new
prohibits anything that becomes e,
by excess or through the weakness
the user. In every such case. regul
ton, moderation, never prohibitio
is the divine order. For example G
forblds murder. Murder does not
come evil by excess but is evil per
On this ground the state has a rig
to prohibit murder Drink is not e
In itself but becomes evil only by
cess. Therefore, reason and loI
which say you may prohibit murder f,
bids You to prohibit drink Prohibit
is not only wrong in principle but is u
moral in practice. It would destroy I
business, investments of liquor m
without indemnity. This principle
wrong whether applied to bank proper
or brewery property, saloon property
farm property.
If burglar were to break into
saloon tonight, and steal from the cal
register or safe, twenty-five meesIy do
lars, dry" jury would send him
the penitentiary. If it is immoral I
despol the liquor man of S25, how ca
1t be moral to destroy his entire il
sestment7 Can thing that is wron
be made right by extending the scale G
eperationi If you take my purse. tina
q THEFT; if you take my life, you cal
81 ~. AoIcer, but when YOU take my lib
~, tnet is prohibition
-% brave IN every age of the world