THE HYDRA-HEADED MONSTER.
By Editor
The Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics has just completed, the Homiletic Review tells us, an important series of investigations, for the year ending Aug. 20, 1896, on the relation of drink to poverty, crime, and insanity. Of the 3,230 paupers cared for in the State institutions, 2,108 were addicted to liquor. Of the adults 75 per cent. were users of liquor. Nearly 40 in every 100 admitted that their pauperism had been brought on by drink. Of the 26,672 convictions for all crimes during the year, 17,575 were for drunkenness alone; and 657 for drunkenness in connection with other crime; while 22,514 were those whose drinking habits brought about conditions and associations which led to the crime. This is 84 per cent. of crime due to drink. It was ascertained that 94 per cent. of the criminals used liquor; and excluding those under 21 years of age, 96 per cent. were liquor drinkers. Out of 1,836 cases of insanity 661 were liquor users. In such adult cases as were learned with certainty it was found that 54 per cent. used liquor, and with 25 per cent. liquor drinking was the direct cause of the insanity. Only one person in each 100 was considered insane because his parents were intemperate, but 52 in every 100, where definite data could be obtained, became insane through the intemperance of grandparents. The evil fell upon the third generation. This is an indication of the work of the hydra-headed monster intemperance. How Does the Court Know?—The Pacific Ensign of December 31 has the following:— “The Sabbath Protective League claims that Eugene Tompkins, proprietor of the Boston theater, and all who attended as well as who took part in the grand concert in Boston Theater, last Sunday evening, for the benefit of Colonel Mapleson, are law-breakers. The law provides that if a concert on Sunday where an admission fee is charged is not sacred, or if the entertainment is not given by a charitable or religious society, then not only are the promoters guilty of a breach of the law, but those who attend are also guilty, and liable to a fine not exceeding five dollars. Among those who attended Sunday night was ex-Queen Liliuokalani, who occupied a box, and under the law she would be equally guilty with the performers in case it was found that the concert was not sacred. The program has been submitted to the court, but there the matter rests for the present.” The court is to decide by the program whether the concert is “sacred”! If it is phrased in pious terminology, presumably it will pass, though every note were mockery. On the other hand, it might not contain a religious term from beginning to end, and yet be as “sacred” in God’s sight as the services in many churches. “Well, what would you do about it?” says an objector. We would have the civil laws, legislators, executors, and courts attend to matters within their own sphere. They would then never have to be called upon to go through the farce of deciding what is “sacred” or what is “profane.” The above is a faint illustration of the reality when Church and State union is more fully developed.9 “Shall I Pay for My Neighbor?”—That is, shall I be compelled to pay for my neighbor’s religious instruction? It seems to us that every man who desires freedom in religious matters should at once say, No, most emphatically; but Rabbi M. S. Levy, of San Francisco, is reported as answering in the affirmative (daily Examiner of January 9) in a lecture given the evening of January 8, in Geary Street Temple. He said:— “Why pay to the support of religion?” urges the one who does not believe in synagogue or church. Why not? We think all of these arguments both false and ruinous, for as soon as the want is that of the community, every individual ought to feel it a high and patriotic privilege to contribute his quota, each according to his ability, according to the blessings with which God has blessed him, since no community can suffer without more or less affecting every member thereof.” The rabbi puts the support of religion upon the same basis as the taxes for illuminating the streets, furnishing water, supporting public schools. It is strange that he does not see the difference. All these other matters in a general way bear upon individuals equally according to amount of property involved, without in any way contravening the rights of conscience. But religion in its myriad forms and different kinds is a matter which lies between man and the object of his worship, whether that object be the God of the Bible, the Chinese Joss, the Virgin Mary, or Buddha. Compulsory taxation is decided and enjoined by a majority. Admitting the principle in his lecture, the rabbi should find no fault when he and his people are called upon to support Roman Catholic priests and institutions. The only consistent position for a patriot and lover of liberty to take is that the support of religious teachers and institutions, moral or financial, shall be wholly and absolutely voluntary on the part of him who contributes. Elsewise is slavery.