Year: 1873




national evils arc but the forerun-
ners Of national destruction. And
it is a matter Of worthy Of no lit
tie serious thought, whether there
is not such all evil in tho United
States. If there is it is that which
attends the use of liquor. Leaving
out the effect which religion
might have, we may ask whether
this evil can bo romedicd by an
interposition Of law or not. II
the hearts of the majority Of the
people are pcrsistcntly set on liq-
uor, then it is evident that laws,
which express the will Of the ma
jority, cannot do anything toward
a prohibition Of it's use. If such is
actually the case it is indeed a
sad one; and we form a part of a
nation surely, destined to suicidal
ruin, unless it shall be turned to
soberncss by some mighty power.
But if on the other hand this evil
is more limited, than it is possible
for it to be remedied by law, and
this being the more probable case,
it is my object to show, that it is
the right and duty Of the law to
prohibit the use, and consequent
ly the sale and manufacture Of ar
dent spirits, except for the use of
the arts.


And in the first place it IS tho
right Of the law, and simply be-
cause law has a right to adopt any
measure which will be for the good
Of the people generally, provided
no mans conscience, and just, pri-
vate rights are violated. Now
every man Of any sense will ad-
nit that the abolishing CT the use
of LIQUOR would contribute to the
general good, and hence law has q
right to abolish it, provided no
mans conscience would be viola
ted But no mans conscience
would be violated by q prohibition
ofLis drinking. On the other hand,
I rather think if a man.has any
conscience, he violates it when
ever he indulges in drinking,
whether it be moderate or eXces-
sivc, he does wrong, and an en-
lighted conscience would tell him
so. There is no sane man who
believes it is his duty to drink, and
hence were he prevented from
drinking, his conscience would
spfcr-no violence. And further
moro no just rights wopId be VIC
latod, for it is easy to see that no
living man, considered as rational
and moral creature, has any right,
whatever to run so dangerous q
risk as to seek his pleasure in
drinking-a risk which involves
the we'll being of. his country, his
family, his character, and his soul.
Drinkers become drunkards, and
hence no man has a right to bo a
drinker Of liquor, unless, he has a
right 10 tramplc upon tho just
rights of bis fellow-mcn. For nj en- of
this refined age arc not only drink
ing in the night, but, in the broad
light Of day. They appear on
the streets as disturbers of the
peace-dcbasers Of society-pub-
lie nuisanccs tull of profanity and
imm morality-guilty Of violence,
and often shedders Of blood. And
such things being actually seen
and felt by all, it is neither rea,
sonable nor right, that any man
should be allowed to run the risk
of. becoming a drunkard by indulg.
ing even moderately.


There are some questions Of
pediency which might be brought
forward as objections. A law pro
hibitiug the use of Spirits would
be tantamount to one prohibiting
their sale and manufacture; and
hence 1t may be objected tina;
such law would deprive many oi
the means of making living. But
this does not follow, as we can
easily sec. Let us take the best
liquor seller in the world-one
who never pcrsuades men to drink
This good man, however makes
his living by selling liquor, aud il
follows that he tries to sell it-he
puts a trial-a tcmptation-in the
way Of his fellow-man-a tempta
ton to get drunk-a temptation
to sin, and consequently sins him
self, md makes his living by sin
ming. And does any man say thai
if he abandoned a simple busines!
he could not make living? No