Hawke's Bay Herald. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23,1886. PROHIBITION.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7548, 23 September 1886, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald. THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1886 . PROHIBITION.

In a well-written. Introductory 'cliapter to " Platform Echoes," liy Jolin X, Gough, the world-famed temperance lecturer, the Rev. Lyman Abbott, D.D.', lias something to say^ on Froliibitiqii. And that something is worthy of perusal by temperance enthusiasts who a!lo\y feeling, to nin away with judgment. . ( It is n'q't pip argument of .in opiioheiit, bul tiie tliou«lit-out jittlgnierit of one noted in the wor.ld of temperance reform, and it is the embodynient of the views of Mr Gougli as well as those of the writer. Mr Abbott says: — We do net propose to argue here the question of prohibition. We do propose to state what .we suppose to be the principles which must be applied in determining that question. We have no doubt of the right of tho community to prohibit the liquor traffic. It lias a right to do what is necessary for its own self-protection. No private property right is superior to the general light of the community to self-protection. France prohibits the importation of all American pork,' because sonic American pork has triclinia;. The United States prevents tlio importation of Egyptian rags because the cholera is raging in Egypt and the : rags may bo infected.. ■ . ... The right to regulate ' cannot be • defended' without conceding tlio right to prohibit, If the State has a right to prohibit the salo to "minors, because of the evils such salo produces.' it 'has a right to prohibit tho salo to adults because of the jjreater evils which the sale produces. If it may prohibit tho sale on Sundays, it may prohibit the sale on week-days. If it may prohibit the sale, except by a few specially licensed vendors, it may prohibit the sale except by a few specially appointed agents Tho right of prohibition is established by a hundred analogies -and precedents. It is undisputable. But right is one thing and power another. ' This distinction, which Burke has so admirably illustrated, lias been often lost sight of iii legislation, A move majority may have the right, but it has not the power, I to prohibit the liquor traffic in any free ' community. 'It can undoubtedly put a' law on the statute-book or a clause in _ the constitution ; hut tills is not enough. There are some things which a mere majority can do ; tliero are other things winch it is potverless to do. It can determine on new policies ; it cannot niako new crimes. A law prohibiting .any act as criminal has no greater power in. a free community country than the public conscience of the eoinHlunity. In the reign of Charles 11., when adultery was a jest in society and on the stage, a law prohibiting adultery would have been valueless. In Utah a law prohibiting polygamy is of no effect, even with the United States Government and United States Judges to enforce it. A single policeman can put to flight a crowd of ronghs'because the roughs know that he has behind him, invisible, the entire force of the moral portion of the .community. But lie is powerless to close a liquor saloon if the saloon-keener knows that the community is evenly divided on the question whether his selling is a ci'ime or not. In such a divided state of public sentiment the law becomes a dead letter. Grand Juries will not indict ; district attorneys will not prosecute ; petty juries will not convict ; judges will not" sentence; and Governors will pardon. To make any criminal law effective the conscience of the vast majority of the community mnst sanction it. The conscience of the vast majority has not yet been educated to the point of regarding the liquor traffic as a crime. It is so regarded oy only a small majority even in the most , temperate States, with perhaps the single exception of Maine ; in most of the States not even a small majority so regard it. A change in the public conscience must precede any effectual change in the public law. ._ . Prohibition laws were enacted in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, arid New York. ; Prohibition is no longer maintained in any of these States, except in Maine and Vermont. The State of Maine has but one city of more than twenty thousand inhabitants; the State of Vermont, none. In the former State the preliminary work of education, before the prohibitory statute was adopted, was thoroughly done by sowing tlio State with temperance literature. . . . But even in Maine it is doubtful whether prohibition has been truly successful, while outside of Maine and Vermont it has been generally abandoned. It has given place in the other New England States to local option. There is no present prospect of its revival in New York State. It is still an experiment in Kansas ; it has received popular approval in lowa, bnt has not yet been put upon trial ; it has commanded a large vote in Ohio, but the vote is a long way from the four- fifths which give prohibition its mornl power in Maine. Pronibitioa may bo tho ultimate form which liquor legislation will assume in this country. That is a question on whichopinions may well differ, and it is one not necessary to discuss hero. We are writing history— not philosophy."