p. 349 | Health and Temperance

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jun 10, 1886

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 12, No. 22.

Health and Temperance.

Plead! Guilty, or Not Guilty?

THE following is an extract from a speech by John B. Finch, at Lake Bluff, Illinois, in 1881. The argument is as good now as it was then, and the statements in the first paragraph are just as applicable in religious controversy as in temperance discussion:—

Some cry, "Attack the liquor seller!" When asked why, they answer, "He is a mean man." What if he is? If the man is mean, he is all the better representative of his business. I prefer a man should be a good representative of the trade he is carrying on. The American people must enter upon the investigation of this question, determined to examine fully all of its phases, to weigh carefully the arguments on both sides, and investigate the alleged facts, produced by advocates who represent the different sides, and then on weight of evidence presented, base their verdict. Anything less would not be reasonable; anything less would not be honest. In trying such issues black-guardism, sneers, and reckless statements are out of place. I am often impressed, when listening to those who represent the other side, that a blackguard is as much out of place in the field of honest, manly discussion as a monkey would be in the tabernacle of the Lord. A man engaged in either intellectual or physical combat never throws mud when he has rocks to use, and when individuals stoop to use the mud of epithets in a discussion of this kind it is prima facie evidence that they have nothing else to use. The copious use of epithets like "fanatic," "zealot," "fool," and "visionary," is not argument, but rather an indication of a cerebral vacuum in the head of the talker. When you see a man standing on the corner, sticking his thumbs under his coat and calling temperance people vile names, just remember it does not require a high order of brains to abuse people. A parrot could do that. "If you have no case, abuse the opposing attorney," is the motto of pettifoggers the world over.

Temperance advocates have no use for the style of argument used by the drunkard makers and their apologists. Temperance men believe they are advocating correct principles, and that the facts and arguments upon which they base their claims are so nearly self-evident that a presentation in a fair, candid way will convince thinking, intelligent people that prohibition is the only remedy for the drink curse. They believe the people are intelligent and fully capable of passing judgment upon any question of governmental policy; that the people are the court of last resort and that all questions must be determined by them. In accordance with this idea they go to the people as to a jury, presenting an indictment against the drink traffic, and ask that the traffic be tried and a verdict rendered in accordance with the evidence. The object and purpose of the work they have never concealed. From the day the temperance reform started in this country, they have declared from every platform their purpose, and that purpose is to bury the liquor business of this country in the same way the old Welsh woman said she would bury the devil, "with face down so that, should he ever come to life, the more he dug the deeper he would get."

Ladies and gentlemen, such is the purpose of the temperance men of this country, a calm, deliberate, dispassionate purpose, formed after a full investigation of all the facts in the case. You say at once: "This involves social changes, legal changes, changes in the very structure of this Government," and I say, "Yes." You ask, "On what grounds do you base the demands for this change?" Let me write the answer; dip my finger in the blood of some man killed by beer or whisky and write it on this wall.

1. From the day the liquor traffic was introduced into this country from the despotisms of Europe, until the present, it has existed as a bitter, blighting, damning curse on everything decent, virtuous, and holy. Its history proves it the enemy of law, order, morality, Christianity, and civilization.

2. The American dram shop is the cause of more than six-sevenths of the pauperism and four-fifths of the crime in the nation. It is the hot-bed where outlaws germinate, the cradle where vice is rocked.

3. Liquor drinking makes the slums of great cities and the horrible condition of mankind in the slums.

The temperance leaders stand before the people of this country, present the indictment, and say to the liquor interest: "Come into the court of the people and plead." It does not matter whether the temperance advocate is a scoundrel or a gentleman, Mr. Beer-seller. The only question the liquor interest of this country must meet is the issue presented in this indictment. If the charges are false, the temperance men of this country are liars; they are slanderers, and the people ought to put them on a rail, ride them out of the towns, and dump them in the lake. If the charges are true, no man can justify the license of the damnable traffic. It is simply a question of fact. Do the temperance men lie, or do they tell the truth? They have proclaimed and pressed the charges. They have stood upon the public platforms and said: "Gentlemen, come before the people and meet us on these issues." How have the liquor men met the charges?

Suppose a young man in Lake Bluff should steal a horse and start to go to Wisconsin. He is arrested this side of the Wisconsin line, brought back, and put in the county jail. The Grand Jury meet and formulate an indictment charging him with felony. The young man is brought into court to make his plea. The people prefer he should be acquitted. I believe it is a fact that the American people always sympathize with the criminal; in other words, they prefer that the man should be proved innocent, rather than that he should be proved guilty. You see a man charged with the crime of murder, led into a court room, and there is not a man who does not hope that the charge is not true. The boy is brought in, the clerk reads the indictment, and asks the simple question: "Are you guilty or not guilty?" It is a question of fact between him and the people; he is expected to do one of two things, either plead guilty and accept the punishment of an outraged law, or not guilty, thereby challenging the allegations of the people, and forcing them to produce the proof.

The indictment is read; he is asked for his plea, "guilty or not guilty," and instead of making it he draws back, begins to whimper, and says: "If I had not stolen the horse some other man would!"

The court would say: "That has nothing to do with the question; it is a question involving your liberty, a simple question of fact; are you guilty or not guilty?"

The prisoner continues to whimper, and says: "People have always stolen horses, and they will always steal horses, and it is not fair to pitch into me."

No court would accept such a plea. I can imagine the indignation of the court when for the third time he asks: "Are you guilty or not guilty?"

The prisoner, drawing back among a crowd of roughs, answers: "And if I am guilty, what are you going to do about it? All prohibitory laws for the suppression of stealing have failed. Persons steal in every section of this land. You cannot stop it. Prohibition is a failure. Let me tell you what I will do. If you will let

me go and continue stealing, I will give you half the money I received for the horse."

If the judge, in the face of such a threat, should accept the bribe and release the prisoner, how quickly the public would move to impeach and depose him for corrupt practices.

The temperance leaders draw an indictment, on which the liquor business is brought into the court of the people. They insist and demand that the traffic shall plead; not sneak into its dens of infamy, not crouch with the bludgeon in the hands of drunken assassins, not bulldoze and intimidate law-abiding citizens; but, like any other criminal, come up and meet the indictment before the people. Bring the traffic into court. Read the indictment, is it true or false?

The liquor dealer commences to whimper, and says:—

"These temperance people are all hypocrites."

"Come, now, brace up and be a man; true or false?"

"Well," he says, "if I don't sell, some other fellows will."

"What has that to do with the question of guilt? The question is simply, Is your business guilty? That is all. If it is not guilty, the business will go on all the stronger; if it is guilty, it must die. Guilty or not guilty?"

"The people have always drank; they always will drink, and it is not fair to pitch into me."

"Guilty or not guilty, Mr. Liquor-seller? That is all."

He draws back and says:—

"Well, if I am, what are you going to do about it? If you say I shall not sell, I will sell anyway; you never have stopped it, and never can stop it. When you say I shall not do it, I will put up the flag of rebellion at the head of a beer keg, and defy you to stop me. Let me tell you what I will do: If you will let me sell, even though I may be guilty of all the crime charged, I will give you $500 out of the money I get as the results of the business."

And the people of Chicago and the people of this country reach out their hands and say:—

"Pass over a part of the illegitimate proceeds; divide the blood money with us, and we will stand behind you and swear you are respectable."