p. 509 | SOME SALOON ARGUMENTS

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Aug 18, 1887

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 13, No. 32.

SOME SALOON ARGUMENTS.

THE fight against the saloon is a conflict of one set of ideas with another set of ideas, in which right is on one side and wrong on the other. This must necessarily be so, for the two sets of ideas are in positive antagonism, and right is unmistakably involved. It follows, therefore, that the proper weapons of the conflict, and the only proper weapons, are such as belong to discussion, full and free discussion. Prohibition can win only by so propagating its ideas as to secure intelligent and conscientious conviction. The saloon can only establish its claim of right to an uninterrupted pursuit of its business by a similar appeal to the intellect and conscience.

Of course in such a conflict prejudice may prevent a fair consideration of an opponent's arguments. There is undeniably a strong prejudice in this country against the saloon business. It is not considered respectable. Those who engage in it are frowned upon in good society; they are, for the most part, excluded from the churches; they are regarded as disqualified for positions of public trust and responsibility, and they are charged with conducting schools of vice, crime, and misery. This feeling is quite general, and to call a man a rum-seller is equivalent in the general estimation to the application of an opprobrious epithet. May it not be, in the face of this general prejudice against saloon-keepers, even among those who use intoxicants more or less, that the arguments they have to offer in self-defense have not received due consideration? As campaigns on the question at issue are in progress in several of the States it will be opportune to inquire what is the nature of the arguments offered in defense of the saloon business.

1. In Iowa, a minister by the name of Haddock, who was active in securing the enforcement of law against the saloons, and became an embodied argument against saloonism, was met and overcome by assassination in the night. This is argument No. 1, or the argument of assassination.

2. In Jackson, Miss., there was an editor of a temperance paper, a young man named Gambrell, who led the fight for local option in Hinds County, against Col. J. D. Hamilton, State Senator, and champion of the liquor interests. The Gambrell argument proved to be a very strong one, and it was met just as the Haddock argument had been met, by assassination. This is also argument No. 1.

3. In Haverhill, O., there was a man named Northrup, who, like Haddock, sought to compel the saloons to observe the law. The Northrup argument was answered by assassination. This is argument No. 1 again applied.

4. In Bridgeton, N. J., Frank C. Smith, a lawyer, who was active in prosecuting illegal saloon practices, was waylaid in the night and silenced, it was supposed, for all time. This is argument No. 1 repeated.

5. Tennessee saloonists in Springfield attempted to answer the prohibition speech of the Rev. T. J. Duncan by dynamite. This is argument No. 2, or the argument of murderous assault.

6. San Antonio, Texas, is the seat of several large breweries and of perhaps three hundred saloons. Respectable men undertook to present, in a respectful way, arguments for prohibition, at a meeting in a public square, the public halls having been refused for the purpose. The saloonists gathered and answered the speakers on the spot with rotten eggs and other missiles. A young brewer, Gus Kauffman, assaulted one of the speakers with a brutal physical argument. The speakers were not allowed to be heard. This is argument No. 3, or the argument of suppression of speech.

7. In Amesbury, Mass., the saloonists, resenting the attempt of the police to enforce the law against them, organized a mob, took control of the streets, and smashed the windows of a clergyman. This is argument No. 4, or the argument of violence.

8. Wichita is a town of Kansas in which liquor used to flow freely. When news reached the saloonists of that place that a prohibitory law had been passed, they published the following card:—

TO ALL PROHIBITIONISTS.

The saloon-keepers of Wichita have $300 on deposit in this office FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE WIDOW of the Son of a Gun who makes THE FIRST COMPLAINT against

THE LIQUOR DEALERS OF THIS TOWN.

This is argument No. 5, or the argument of intimidation.

9. In Texas men more or less prominent have met the arguments for prohibition thus: "We will fill the Brazos River with dead Prohibitionists."—Judge Gerald. "We will damn them."—The Hon. John Hancock. "The Prohibitionists go to Kansas for their pattern, to Plymouth Rock for their religion, to John Brown for their morals, and will go to hell for their meanness, unless they quit it."—Judge Gustave Cook. "I wish to God I could alienate these Prohibitionists."—Col. R. Q. Mills. "Why can't people attend to their own business and let other people's business alone."—Gov. John Ireland.

These specimens might be divided between arguments Nos. 3, 4, and 5.

But saloonists have an argument that sounds much better to law-abiding ears than any of the foregoing. It is this: Prohibition is an invasion of personal liberty and constitutional right. But the interpretation they give personal liberty is this: Liberty for the saloon, but not for anybody to speak or work against it.—Independent.