Year: 1877

From the Detroit Free Press.


What shall we do with our drunkard,


has been for years one of the most alb


sorbing of social problems and a. the
; same time one of the most difficult OF


solution. Prohibition has been tried
| and, so far as any reduction in the army


OF the Incorporate is concerned. ha,


failed. Moral suasion has had seasons


OF spasmodlc success, and Just at the


present time gives promise Of achieving


a marked and wide spread reform, which


IN many cases will be permanent. The


" disease theory, with its treatment OF


the lntemperate as physically unsound


aud ft subjects for medical care and


restraint, precisely as the insane are, is


also succeeding to limited extent, the


number of those who are willing to be


treated as diseased being very small


when compared with the immense army


of the Incorporate


Another instrumentality which claims


to be reformatory, and which is so fond


ly regarded by some, has been even less


successful than any other We refer TO


the judicial proceeding against men


charged with drunkenness. In every


city in the land drunkenness in a public


place is an otfense against the laws, and
! for years the authorities in all the cities


have been arresting, fning and imprisou.


ing drunkards. But if there is an in.


stance where a drunkard was ever re.
formed by the the prodceeding, it has yet


to be made public. Certainly there has


been 10 such instance in Detroit within
the past twenty years, and yet the same
routine is pursued, the same old drunk
ards arrested and re-arrested, until they
escape the clutches of the law by falling
into the clutches of death, while the
ranks are constantly kept full with new
recruits. There is no especial complaint
TO be made of this state of affairs, so far
as the drunkards themselves are con.
cerned at least we have noue to make
here. Public drunkenness is an offense
aud if punishment is justifable in re.
spect to any offense it is justifable in re.
epect to this. 1t is worth while to in
quire, however, in the public interest
whether system which produces no
better results in diminishing drunken
ness, considered merely as an offense, is
not radically defective. And especially
is it worth while to make this inquiry
when the evils of the system press, not
upon the offender, but in most cases up.
on his unoffending family. Practically
there is no other punishment for drunk
enness thar a fine. The Imprisonment
provided for is merely alternative and
may always be escaped by the payment
Of fine. In the vast majority Of cases
the fue is paid, sometimes by the offend
er himself, often, very often, by his hard
working wife, who is compelled in pay
ing it to deprive herself and her child
rem of the necessaries of live.


And who profits by it ? The drunk
ard or offender is not reformed. The
liability of his repeating the offense is
not decreased. Indeed, experience shows
that the drunkards whose fines are paid
for them almost invariably reappear,
not once but scores Of times. The only
gain made is by the library fund, which |
derives its chief income from this source
aud useful as that fund is, it may well
be asked whether it might not better be
diminished than be increased by such
means. There is something beautiful
in the theory that the wicked of this
generation shall be taxed for the means
to so educate the rising generation as to
keep it from wickedness but there is
very clearly screw loose in the prac.
tice under the theory 1t is not the
wicked that is taxed when the drunkard
is fined, but the innocent, the unoffeod
ing, the heart broken victims of wicked
ness. A library built upon the native
offerings of vice to virtue is fine thing;
but the actual library built upon the
tears and sacrifices of the unfortunate
is not so pleasant to contemplate.


For the good of society, no less than
for the reformation Of the drunkard-
which is also for the good of society
this business of fining ought to be great
ly modified, if no. abandoned altogether.
The system might proftably be continu-
ed, perhaps, for application in those
cases where the offense of drunkenness
is luxury INDUCED in by those who
are able to pay for it without depriving
their families of the means of subsist
cnce but in all cases where such will
clearly be the effect of fine, some
other punishment should be substituted
Even if the law has no other or higher
object than furnishing an offender the
end can be Just as we'll attained by i'm Il
as by fue; and if the object
is in any sense reformation, the compul-
sorry deprivation of the ability to repeat
.hc offeuse, is far more likely to answer
Inc end sought.


In our codes there is one thing that