Year: 1870




that they require to be treated differ
entity, Notwithstanding that orr
friend the "Old Settler" would have
them both managed alike. We do
not positively understand that he
would attempt to drink the horse, or
that he would seriously try to saddle
and ride the whisky-but it appears
to us that he does get the two some
what confused in his cogitations.


But more seriously speaking, in
order to make the sophistry Of can
Old Settlers" wellwritten communi-
cation more apparent, one need only
recollect the simple facts that horse
is necessary thing-that its COM
mon and general use is absolutely
indispensable to the comfort and
welfare Of society az well as OF indi-
viduals-whereas the whisky isquite
the reverse, and is very rarely or
never necessary, but on the contrary
is the proven and demonstrated cause
of nineteen twentieths of all crime
in the land. The due consideration
of these facts will alone be a sufficient
answer to all of our friend the "Old
Settlers" inferential arguments.


So far as this paper is concerned,
however, we have not yet attempted
to argue on the principles of the case
at large; and we have neither time
nor room TO do so now, even if there
were any need of it. The ground we
have taken is rather the concrete and
practical one, that liquor-saloons are
nuisances and ought to be abolished.
This is, if Il question at all, a question
of facts rather than arguments. 1.-THE
welfare of the people is the supreme
law"-and we have never yet heard
of a man insane enough to argue that
liquor-saloon was benefit to a
town. On the contrary everybody,
even the liquor-drinker himself, will
admit that the saloon don't benefit
the community in general.


The argument against liquor
saloons then is, that they don't do
any good, and do do great deal of
hurt, and therefore they ought to be
abolished. Now, look at the town
of-well, say the town of Ollapod-
in this County. There is a liquor
saloon in the town. One man stays
i'm it and peddlesthe beer and linnor-
Now, wf1at good is he deing to the
community? is he producing any
thing to eat, wear or use in any way?
No. Is he making market for any
such produce? No. Is he offering
facilities of exchange of commodities
among the people? No. Is he help
ing in any way to build up or inn
prove the town: No. Does his
business improve the credit and good
name of the place any: No-but
lust the reverse. Would the town
lose anything by his stopping busi-
ness? No-but would gain. Would
the town be improved in any way if
there were forty more saloons to be
opened there? No-that would just
about kill the town, for no good
citizen would then want to stay, and
no good citizen would want to come


Now, here is what the liquor.
saloon does: 1t needlessly and use.
lessly ministers means to depraved
appetites. All observation shows
that as such saloons increase, 50
drunkenness and its attendant evils
and crimes -iHeeffeetatsst-.-N east. we cannot by
law cure the appetitcs or change the
natures of men, but we can by law
wipe out the saloons and so remove
the opportunities and indictments to
evil. "Dry up the fountains, and
you stop the streams" Keep the
liquor out OF the town, ana drunk
ards and other drinkers can't get it
so easily and therefore there will be
less dissipation in the town, less
disorder, less idleness, less crime.
If we cannot stop all the evil i'm the
world, let US at least prevent what
we can. That's the argument for
abolishing the l;quor-saloons-and
that's the difference between the
horse and the whisky.