Evening journal., 1917-10-22


deny, you could not cure the evil by
treating the effect instead Of the cause.
The man in front is the cause, the liquor
dealer the effect. My opponent will make
strong argument against the evils of
intemperance. But every argument
against the abuse of liquor is an argu-
ment for temperance, not prohibition.
Our dry friends are so hard up for an ar
gument in defense Of prohibition that
they are compelled to use argument
against the abuse and seek to make IL
applicable TO the use of liquor. Their
logic is absolutely unsound and utterly
absurd. You cannot apply any argument
against the use of thing that is appli-
cablee only to its abuse.
When a physician treats the effect
instead of the cause Of your sickness,
you call him quack. Still 1 heard of a
doctor like that who once saved a mans
life. The poor devil sent for him and
the doctor would not come.
We reject prohibition not because we
want 10 run q brewery, but because the
whole contention rests upon a false
premise. The Drys try to prove that the
prohibition contention does not rest upon
false premise because some men drink
to excess, some saloons are bad, certain
people who drink are poor and Others
commit crimes. This is like trying to
establish the Innocence of murderer
by convicting some other man of theft
This is shown by the 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 prevent the abuse
Of good thing.
There are only two remedies for in
temperance; moderation and total abb
stinence Each belongs TO the realm
Of personal liberty. Neither can become
personal virtues unless self-imposed and
self-enforced. You can take man away
from liquor, but you cannot take liquor
away from man.
Prohibition in trying to prevent a man
from buying a drink makes it possible
for him to buy a drink. A glance at
the record will convince every reason
able person that prohibition wherever
tried has utterly failed to prevent the
consumption of liquor. On the other
hand, the consumption has increased
despite the fact that in the last sixty
years more than 100000 saloons have
been abolished and one-half the geo.
graphical territory of the United States
placed under prohibitory law.
The official records show-and / defy
successful ontradiction-that in 1850
when the first great prohibition move.
ment started, the annual per capita con.
sumption of alcoholic beverages in the
United States was fraction more thar
four gallons. Ten years later It hal
risen to nearly six and one-haf gallons
This encouraged the dTys and they mad
desperate struggle for ten years more
At the end of that time the consump
ton increased to seven and three-quarte
gallons. OF course this aroused still
greater enthusiasm among prohibition
workers and in 1850 consumption reach
ed ten gallons per capita. Inspired b.
their wonderful progress, prohibtionist
redoubled their diligence, and, notwith
standing, they abolished thousands o
saloons, the consumption of liquor tel
years later had increased to fifteen an
one-half gallons.
About this time the drys organized tn
Anti Saloon League. They enlisted
vast number of preachers and man,
churches I'm their crusade, but despit
the abolition of legitimate saloons tn
per capita consumption Of alcoholic liz
{ uors reached seventeen and one-half gal
Ions in 1900.
This seemed to inspire them wit
boundless zeal, and with one grand on
slaught they placed city after city, coun
ty after county, state after state in tn
dry column. Notwithstanding this fac
the latest internal revenue report show
that, instead of consuming four gal
/ Ions per capita, as In 1850 when pro
hibitionists started TO save us from tn
demon rum, we are now consuming
gallons per capita.
Prohibitionists by making one-half tn
geographical territory of the Unite
States dry have increased the consumT
ton of hquor from four to twenty-hv
gallons per capita. Great Godl Wha
will be the per capita consumption G
liquor in the United States when the
make the other half dryl Now, If th
Dry orators can prove that the more
man drinks the less apt is he to becom
intoxicated he can show that Irohib
ton is a remedy for incompetence.
he succeeds in demonstrating that pre-
position l agree to prove that the less
man drinks the more drunken he bG
comes.
While prohibition cannot promote ten
perance, lit does breed sneaks, liars, h,
pocrites, perjurers and petty criminals
any one OF which Is a greater menace {
manhood, a greater menace TO moralit
than the worst saloon that ever existed
We oppose prohibition not OnIy Decslu7
it is u failure, but because in trying
suppress one vice by force you Great
five others more deadly than the on
YOU would destroy. The Dry orator
attempt TO defend prohibition by admit
ting that local prohibition, county pre-
hibition and state prohibition have a
failed as remedies for intemperance. II
viii tell you that, while prohibition o
a small scale is an utter failure, ms
tional prohibition will prove to be
wonderful success. As we have nevG
tried national prohibition, he can off,
no evidence to prove that it would be
remedy for incompetence. By admittin
that every kind of prohibition we hay
tried is failure he hopes to prove this
the kind we have not tried is sure I
be success. You win have to take h
word for that.
We have now shown that prohibitio
is not only wrong in principle but Of
posed TO nature, immoral in practice,
menace to manhood, but that the entil
prohibition contention rests upon falls
premise.
When thing is wrong in principle
] - hound 60 foil II, ,,racfira II ia for IN