The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1921-04-22
More on Prohibition
Is 1t a Closed Question or Is There
Room for Discussion?

EDrTOR THE STAR: At the regular meeting of the
T. Seattle Ministerial Union, held on Monday April H.
1921 at the Y. NJ c. A, the following was unanimously
adopted by the Union and its officers asked to forward
IL TO you:
THE Seattle Ministerial Union strongly rcsents the in
ference carried in recent editorial in The Seattle Star that
the ministers Of Seattle not in sympathy with prohib
ton and with awenforcement because unnamed min
lister have by his confession been guilty oil Vio
ation of the law"
And they further wish to put record the following:
The members Of the ministerial union hereby declare
and they hereby pledge their hearty support to the officers
responsible for law enforcement in the OF their
PHILIP BAUER. President
Il would be perfectly asnne for any one to infer
to that Seattle Minister, whole, or any i'm
portant number of them not in sympathy with pro-
hbton. The Star prides itself not being absurd
give that impression. The Star did speak Of
minister who did not believe in total prohibition. The
Ministerial Union apparently Is carrying chip on its
shoulder If il reads in that statement inference that
the clergy generally 10 against the present dry laws
The Star would be very much surprised II that were
the case and would the public in general How.
ever, that 10 beside the point involved in the editorial
referred to. The question raised not whether pro-
bbton, abstract proposition, was good or bad,
and whether il should be enforced not. The edi-
toria merely referred to the practical difficulties has
encountered and asked whether popular sentiment
behind the law. The law is with and should be
enforced. But long popular sentiment 10 opposed
to any law the difficulties of enforcing il be mag
med. Under such circumstance there 10 quite re-
spectacle class Of thinker many Of them ardent
hbtonists who believe the ultimate results could be
better secured by gradual prohibition. They may be
wrong, absolutely wrong But they entitled to
that belief for they may be right
Historically, we q parallel in the old slavery
question. No figure stands out more prominently in
this respect than Abraham Lincoln's But Abraham
Lincoln when elected president and even after the
civil broke out favored the gradual emancipation
Of the slaves He never favored abolition in one sud-
den gup. For years he pleaded against the program
outlined by the abolitionists.
1t was only when he convinced that the enamel
patton proclamation would aid the Union 4 WAR
that he Issued IL His battle heretofore had
been keep the slavery evil from spreading into new
territory. and not to kin il outright in the savehold
ing states.
Lincoln, Of course, vas one Of the most patient men
IN history, and tho he hated slavery he possessed that
calmness which makes for practical vision. He was
willing to reach for Utopia By gradual stages.
Had North and South followed his Leadership with
the faith have in him, slavery would have
passed out Of existence without four years Of bloody
war.
We not assuming that this proves the case for
gradual prohibition. Nor assuming that be-
prohibition in dose that il should not
be enforced.
But we hope sufficiently broad-minded 70 see
that there may be more than side involved in
question that 10, indeed large and important.