Year: 1867

FOnblanque compared the quarrel
between the English Catholics and
Puseyites to the case of a certain
iInkeeper, who complained that, after
he had been at work for several days
brewing port wine for general elec-
tion, corrupter had presented the
independent voters with a genuine
cask, to make beasts of them. 44i G


This chaos of complaint is really
good deal like the argument of ex-
Gov. Andrew, in Boston, against pro-
hibitory law. Even those who agree
with his conclusion must grow little
bewildered over the two opposing
routes by which it is reached For
instance, he proves that the use of
liquor is no bad thing; and then that
the prohibitory law must be a very
bad thing, because it really multiplies
such use. Moreover, he shows that
no law has any effect whatever upon
the drinking usages of society: and
yet that this law has an exceedingly
bad effect. He demonstrates that the
law actually increases temptation by
putting temptation out of sight; and
then argues that it is no bad thing to
be tempted. He brings witnesses to
show that the whole community is be-
ing demoralized by drink; and then
labors to show that drink produces
neither pauperism nor crime. AT
one point he objects to the law, be-
cause to stop the sale of liquor is to
invade private rights; and at another
point he condemns it because it in
creases the sale, and thus does public
wrong. Physiologically, he thinks
drinking does good; but morally,
how very bad that people should be
led to drinking by the pleasure OF
breaking the law! Alcohol, he thinks,
is food but the prohlbitory law tends
to provide such food literally, and is
therefore to be condemned.


1t would do discredit to Gov. An
drew's head to suppose that he had
blundered into this series of moral
dilemmas. The trouble is that, he
is serving two masters. One half of
those who oppose the prohibitory law
are deluded temperance men, who
think it effects too little. The other
halt, and much the more Jealous, are
those publicans and sinners who Sc
cretly know that it effects a great
deal too much. The two forces
are two halves of pair Of sharp
scissors, moving opposite ways for a
common end; and if Gov. Andrew
cuts his fingers badly in acting the
part of rivet it is no fault of ours.


One thing is certain. Under what
ever flag the liquor-dealers fight, the
mass of sober men will rally to the
opposing flag. The long war with
slavery has taught us at least this
lesson, to observe where the enemy
stands and take our stand opposite
For want Of this knowledge the
Whig and Democratic parties went
down, carrying great many ex-Gov-
ernors with them. Processing to
| fight for liberty, under the lead of
shareholders, they found the moral
dilemma too much for them. Whose
ever tries to fight for temperance un-
der the lead of liquor-dealers will do
no better.


If we may believe Gov. Andrews
witnesses, Boston is deluged with
liquor, the result OF the prohibitory
law. If we may believe his friends
the liquor-dealers, they must soon
give up business under the law, and
! (as they naturally infer) the trade of
Boston will be ruined. Both asser-
tions cannot be true. Either annihi-
lates the other. For ourselves, we
believe that the children of this world
are wiser in their generation than the
children of light; and that Gov. An
drew's clients know their own busi-
ness better than his clergymen.


As we take it, a little straightfor-
ward hypocrisy (if we may say so)
would have done the business better.
Gov. Andrew should have dropped
either the end of his argument or its
beginning. He should have said,
"Liquor is a good thing, in modera-
ton; therefore let US remove the pro-
hibition, which is running its SALE "
Or he should have said, Liquor is a
bad thing; therefore let usremove the
prohibition, which is promoting its
sale" He should have kept off the
witness-stand either ais alcoholic
Psychologist or his temperance phi
Ianthropists. Then he might possibly
have come into port on the one track
or the other. Now he has "missed
stays" and is drifting on the rocks.


But, it is to be supposed. he is simp-
ly doing his duty as an advocate. If
it is feat of skill in Morphy to play
six games of chess at once, blindfold,
why should not a lawyer argue two
cases in one, and for two sets of op-
posing clients Au +


The trouble with Gov. Andrew is,
that he has been so long in an occu-
patton were sincerity and a single
mind were required that it is now
rather hard for him to play any other
part. He shows his clients game
too plainly. We commend to him and
them the advice given by Lord Ches-
terfeld to his chaplain, as recorded
by Colley Cibber. Chesterfield told
the chaplain that, if he would add one
more to his numerous sins, his char
acter might yet be set up again
"What sin p asked the disreputable
divine. Hypocrisy, Doctor; hy-
pocrisy."-Nep York Independent.