Milford chronicle., 1926-02-19
P. DU POINT THINKS
DRY LAW MENACES
U. S. INSTITUTIONS
(continued from nrBt pagS)

disputed, but if you seek to ally
"the churches" with a strict up
holding and approval of the Eight
eenth Amendment, you are quite
mistaken. Accepting the Prohlbl-
ton Amendment as an endeavor to
prevent the evils flowing from the
introduction of alcohol into the
human stomach, for such is mani
festly its intent, we find some OF tne
churches in open conflict with and
actually defying the amendment
by the use of sacrimental wine. ut
is interesting that the Volstead Act
is in like conflict.) Apart from this
fact, which even ardent proh1bl-
tionists are willing to overlook, the
churches, as such, are not by any
means unqualified endOrsers OF the
Eighteenth Amendment as the best
means of combating the drink
evil" 1 myself doubt the wisdom
of the amendment and 1 do not ad-
NIT that the drink evil' covers the
moderate use of alcoholic drink
Strong in this belief are many 9TH
ers who are absolutely with you and
with me in their desire to suppress
the drink evil. We only diner
among ourselves in the choice
of means to that end. You and your
friends will do better to ally your
selves with those who are honestly
interested in the cure of the drink
evil, even at the sacrifice of PrOhibi-
ton, than to accept, as ally, the
bootleggers, q powerful interest
that some day will arise to plague
you.
Mans Power to Combat
You have likened the selling of
alcoholic liquor to violations OF the
Mann act and to slavery, but 1t is
prohibition that should be so l1kened
for it is prohibition that interferes
with the freedom of the victims of
a misguided power. Lincoln de-
tested slavery; he would have de-
tested prohibition. If your opinion
favoring prohibition is as sure as
if God had written it in letters Of
fire across the heavens, any believer
in the Bible is still more sure thaC
God has written his approval OF
drink in moderation on the pages OF
His Book. If we admit divine in
tent with respect to earthly things,
it must be with full admission that
man was intended to combat evil
and was given character and power
for the conflict. This power is still
in him, without unnecessary prohlD-
iting laws.
When the prohibition amendment
of the Federal Constitution was
proposed I was not adverse to 1t.
Had I cast a direct vote on the ques-
tion. it would have been to vote
lave" To me, and doubtless to
others, the personal inconvenience
and sacrifice, if any, could mean
little in the hope of curing an evil
long recognized, particularly at
time when every indication was
favorable to the gradual lessenlng
of the use of intoxicating drink
But, even had the result OF tne
amendment proved satisfactory TO
the whole or to any part of our peo-
ple, which it has not 1 should now
be opposed to it for its fundamental
wrong.
If the principle involved in this
amendment is admitted to be right
the Declaration of Independence is
an insincere and untruthful instru-
ment. deliberately aimed to deceive.
and the Constitution of the United
States a hollow mockery. We must
admit that the unbridled passions
of men might lead to the disregard
of all that we hold sacred and right.
but our fundamental documents de-
clare belief that the people OF th@
United States have risen ABOVE
these unbridled passions forever.
The Eighteenth Amendment has
shaken $50 years of firm adherence
tn our belief. We are a free people
and our Constitution places upon US
grave responsibilities. Does not the
Eighteenth Amendment cast doubt
upon our fitness? We have before
us a recognized evil; number OF
people (grant that they are ma
ioritv) believe that this evil can be
cured by a certain means, but the
method of cure will transgress the
rights of a minority who are neither
interfering with their neighbor5 nor
iniuring the very few whose health
and happiness is invUlvev.
Asks Some Questions
Is it lust that the majority shall
seek to appropriate the rights of
the minority even for the benefit
of a very few unfortunates? Once
granted that our Constitution Is
nothing but a license to a certain
number of voters to interfere with
the rights of their fellows, we shall
some dav be confronted with some
7N,.nt1oT1n fhnGs
Will the difficulties in enforcing
the Mann Act and in protecting
women result in the prohibition OF
courtship and marriage?
Will the present court congestion
and difficulties in law enforcement
result in prohibiting trial by jury
and the establishment of medle-
val torture and the death penalty
for trivial Offenses?
Will the burden Of the care OF
our aged teachers, public servants
~andre1atives call for their eXecu-
tion at a certain improbable age!
Will the embarrassment OF
growing population call for the
prohibition of children beyond IL
of 1 per cent of our number, win
deliberate and legalized slaughter Oh
the excess?
May Lose Rights .
IF our Constitution does not safe
guard against the whim OF the ma
iority of our fellows, other inallen-
able rights may be taken from u.s.
such as:
The right to exercise the Chris
tian religion;
The right to own property;
The right to freedom of speech;
rUbo freadOnn Of tha OreSS: