Year: 1878




SO large as to show that no similar bill can
be passed, the liquor question in this State
passes into a new phase. The principles
avowed by the speakers in opposition to the
DAILY bill lead, by inevitable logical conse-
quence, to the duty and moral necessity OF
q complete suppression OF the traffic in alco-
holic drinks. For our part we object in the
the State kept in turmoil over the
liquor question for ten or twelve
more years in order to reach result
which may as well be accepted at once. The
Temperance champions have demonstrated
their control of the New York Legislature,
and we hope they will have what is called
''the courage of their convictions" They
cannot logically stop at the law OF 1857.
That law is as fully condemned by their
principles as the Daily bill. BY the law OF
1857 intoxicating beverages are permitted
to be sold in small quantities only by hotel
keepers; but if liquor drinking is ruinous
sin what justification can there be for its
sale at places for the entertainment OF
travellers? Why should people on jour-
ney be INDUCED in practice which is not
permitted to people who remain at their
homes? Why should the rules Of morality
be set aside for travellers?


Consistency, thou art ajewel" " is very
old and very suggestive exclamation. We
insist that the teetotalers be consistent.
Will they tell us on what basis of morals, or
what basis Of logic, or what basis of common
sense, or what basis of physiology or pathol-
ogy they can maintain that it IS proper for
traveller sojourning at an inn to buy and
drink glass of brandy while it is highly
improper Tor a citizen who stays at home?
What has the mere accident that a man is
ON journey to do with the immutable
principles of morality? Why is it any
more proper to dispense "poison" to
traveller than to resident? Why would
it not he as allowable for the Legislature to
enact that forgery or arson is permissible to
travellers, though not to people who stay at
home, as to make similar enactment re-
specting the sale of liquor? When it is
once decided that thing is morally wrong
that ought to end all discussion rs to its
permissibility. 1t is preposterous, it is
ridiculous, to assert that it is right to
drink liquor at the bar Of hotel, but sinful
to drink it at the bar of saloon. 1t follows
by strict logic that if liquor drinking is
sin it is equally sin in tavern and in a
groggery The principles of the teetotalers
tend inevitably to the utter suppression of
the liquor traffic in all places, and it is bet
L. H. - l. -
to go through several years Of angry agitation
to reach the same result The legal defni-
tion of an inn is that it is place where
there are three beds. But can three beds
extract the poison from whiskey and render
it harmless? Can three beds transmute sin
into innocence? If liquor selling or liquor
drinking be moral offence how can the fact
that there are three beds in the house. or
three hunks which conniving excise COM
missioners indulgently accept as beds,
change the character of that moral offence?
Two gills of unwatered whiskey will make
a man drunk quite irrespective of the ques-
tion whether hunks are BEDS or whether
the beds are three or seven or seven hun
dred. II whiskey is poison which it is q
sin to sell or to drink it would be laughable
to maintain that any number of mattresses
and BLANKETS can be either an antidote to the
poison or a palliation Of the sin. The bed
argument is "a refuge of lies," and the
temperance people should be ashamed to
compromise their principles by recognizing
so transparent humbug. There is no log
ical stopping place for them this side of to-
tai prohibition, and if that principle is to
the better.


There are two distinct and we'll marked
theories respecting wine and spirits One
of these theories-the one which has been
adopted in most civilized countries-puts
these beverages on the same footing rs gun
powder, nitro-gycerine and other explosive
substances. This theory comedies their
occasional usefulness, but recognizes their
dangerous character. and it's legislative
aim is not to suppress the traffic in them,
but to regulate it. The other theory classes
Intoxicating drinks with cbscene and licen-
tious publications. regarding them as an
unmitigated and corrupting nuisance, and
its Legislative aim is not to regulate their
sale, but to suppress it altogether. The
reasons assigned in the Assembly for oppo-
sition to Mr.. Daly's bill rest on the last
named of these two theories. The rejected
bill was framed in accordance with the other
theory. Legislation respecting gunpowder
and other explosives has always been re-
garded as justifable interference with the
freedom OF traffic. There is no valid objec-
tion to the use of gunpowder by sporting
men, although some fanatics have made spas
modic demonstrations against pigeon shoot
ing no valid objection to firing salutes on
occasions OF public congratulation f; and
least OF all any objection TO the use of gun
powder in blasting. But the storage of large