Evening journal., 1917-10-22

save the few who need IT,
Certainly no moderate drinker could
need prohibition. He is sufficient unto
himself. II would be ridiculous to sup
pose that any total abstainer needs a
legal muzzle He has made the decision
for himself without the aid of the state
or the help Of prohibition meddlers.
Certainly no Christian could need pro-
hibition. The Christian is saved by grace
not by law. He depends upon God,
not Dick, Tom and Harry in the legis-
lature.
Imagine a Christian singing "Safe in
the Arm of Jesus and brawling for a
legal straight Jacket to keep him from
falling in the gutter The idea that any
Christian could need prohibition is an in
suit to the Christian system and a re-
I Election on the power Of Christ to save
men. Only the weakling, incapable of
self control could possibly need a legal
muzzle, but is it right to muzzle every
body else on his accounts
l am not here to condone drunkenness,
but we gain nothing by exaggeration,
and the number of drunkards in this
country has been exaggerated beyond all
reason.
If a man is arrested for drunkenness
every day in the year he appears in the
records as 1856 different men and the
drys count him as a new man every time
he is arrested.
! A hundred men 90 into n saloon. All
take drink; 30 leave the place, and
when they go nobody sees them. One
man gets drunk and when he leaves the
saloon everybody sees him and he is
multiplied by every man he meets. Still
he is the same fellow today, tomorrow,
next month and next year. In this man
ner the evils of intemperance have been
vastly exaggerated and thousands Of
people deceived.
Prohibition laws are designed to pro-
hibit the manufacture, sale and use Of
alcoholic liquors for beverage purposes.
You can abolish the brewer, the distiller
and close the saloon by law, but you
can never make legislation a remedy for
the evils of incompetence.
This is due to the fact that lawless
liquor when drank to excess will make
a man just as drunk as the legal kind.
The drunkard is not a product of the
saloon because you can make drunkards
without saloons-they existed before sa-
looms were ever heard of. The drunkard
is the product of the saloon the same as
the glutton is the product Of the grocery
store. Each is a victim of his own folly
and weakness. Abolish the grocery store
and the glutton will continue to dig his
grave with his teeth. Abolish the open
saloon and the drunkard will still get
his liquor and continue to misjudge his
capacity. Drinking from a bottle is a
greater menace to Temperance than drink
ing at bar.
Under license a man buys his liquor at
retail in five and ten-cent quantities.
Under prohibition he buys wholesale by
the quart, case or barrel If a man buys
wholesale he is liable TO drink wholesale.
If he drinks wholesale he is liable to 60
on a wholesale drunk.
Under license the drinker buys a drink
Under prohibition he buys a drunk
. But suppose you make the bone dry
law effective, will that save him2 I'm
7, possible He can still make cider, and
! hard cider is intoxicating. He can buy
4 bottle of "Bill Bry0n's" grape Juice
: fail to put back the cork and in two Of
three days he will have a drink that il
just as intoxicating as anything
brewer ever made or a saloonkeeper evei
sold. AZ last resort he can establish
J a $40 tea kettle distillery in his kltcher
and distil enough alcohol every day t
intoxicate himself and his whole family
. In order to make law a remedy fol
l intemperance It must repeal the law Of
7 fermentation. If government cannot re-
G peal Gods law of fermentation, prohibi
e ton 10 doomed to failure. In the mean
time II you hope TO make law a remedy
= for intemperance it must be enforced moi
against the brewer, distiller or saloon
4 keeper, but against the drinker II
carry out a program of this kind against
? the drinker you must absolutely destroy
G liberty and establish upon its ruins {
I system of depotism. The government
3 must maintain constant repression
= Only despotism can do this. You
10 would need as many enforcement officer
G as possible. 1t would be necessary t
Z place one man with club over anothe
and keep him there all the time. If yol
q watched him by day only he would ge
/ drunk at night. If you watched him il
!. the night time he would get drunk b!
a daylight. 1t would be necessary to guar
4 him night and day, this week, mex
+ month and next year-all the time with
!. out intermissiOn. Then l think yol
Y would need a third man to watch tn
! other two because if anybody ever lai'
You ask why, if we can enforce Law
: against murder we cannot enforce tn
law against drinkl The reason is this
: murder is everybody's business; all ar
equally interested in the enforcement o
J. the law. Murder involves another man
life. Drink is not everybody's business
i therefore, everybody viii not assist lega
{. officers in the enforcement of prohibi
;, ton. It Is everybody 8 business whethe
o YOU kill a man, but nobody's business bu
Y your own whether you take a drink
l. Prohibitionists have but one argumen
e that will stand the acid test. The argu
o ment against drunkenness is sound
Q endorse it. Nobody can make the argu
Q ment against drunkenness too strong TO
5 me. Neither can any man make the ar
J. gument against lying too strong but yol
J. cannot apply the argument against ly
Il ing TO speech. You would endorse an,
e argument you could make against glut
n tony but would you stand for the ap
j. plication of the argument against glut
a tony TO food OF a proposition TO prohibi
n food in order to save the gluttong n
r man can make an argument agains
a forgery which you and I would not en-
& dorse, but would we agree TO have In
e argument against forgery applied l.
t educationg Would it be right TO abolis
o our institutions of learning in order I
IS prevent some people FROM qualifying t
commit forgery
n You can no more in reason apply tn
y argument against drunkenness TO drin
i, -. -, oor opplv Tho aru-1manf of L.