Prohibition by Editor

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Aug 7, 1884

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 10, No. 30.

Prohibition.

By Editor

IT has been our belief for more than thirty years that prohibition is the only consistent position in which temperance reformers can stand. A reformation is necessarily progressive, because a complete reformation of any great abuse is never made at a single movement. We are gratified to see the progress which has been made on this subject by temperance workers.

More than thirty years ago we were invited to prepare an address for a county temperance society in Wisconsin. In that we argued in favor of prohibition; and as a result the address was adopted by a bare majority, the dissenters mostly withdrawing from the society and working thereafter only with the Sons of Temperance! No longer ago than 1877 we were invited to speak to a "Blue Ribbon Club" in a village in southern Michigan, and we there spoke in favor of prohibition. At the close of our remarks a prominent member of the club arose and promptly repudiated our position, stating that that was not the object of the organization, and that they had no sympathy with such remarks. In 1878 we were a little more fortunate. Being invited to speak before a temperance organization in Newark, Ohio, we presented the subject in the same light. They gave us a respectful hearing, and we were informed by a member, a few weeks afterward, that our remarks had been the subject of discussion at every meeting held since they were made, and most of the members were becoming convinced that we were right.

But quite different from this was our experience in 1879 in this city. A Mr. Haskell was holding a series of temperance meetings, and he invited us to speak a few moments at one of them, and we were so unsophisticated as to broach our old theme of prohibition, and advocate it. Mr. Haskell was not an animated or animating speaker, but on that occasion he spoke with unusual vigor in denouncing our position, and holding us up as an illustration of the fact that a man of good intentions may run into great errors! He did not, however, make any attempt to show the fallacy of our arguments, nor have we ever known any one to attempt that task.

It has been a favorite cry with many that "prohibition does not prohibit." That the expression is a contradiction in terms did not seem to strike their minds. What but prohibition could prohibit anything? Prohibition or prohibitory laws do not prohibit theft and murder, or rather, they do not prevent these crimes; evil-doers break the laws, and it has thus far been found impossible to strictly enforce them. What then? Shall we abolish our laws against theft and murder, and acknowledge that they have proved failures? Shall we "regulate" these crimes and put them under the restrictions of "high license"?

And what has seemed most strange of all is that the dealers in liquors have been the leaders in making this cry, very kindly advising the temperance people to desist from their efforts in favor of prohibitory laws, as they would surely prove ineffectual. Of course no one could doubt their sincerity in giving this advice, for who does not know that they earnestly desire that temperance workers should choose the most effective methods of accomplishing their object? What unselfish philanthropists liquor-sellers are!

But some recent occurrences have materially changed the tone of these kind advisers. The prohibitory law of Iowa is now in force, and we have noticed some most bitter outcries from those who have been wont to proclaim that "prohibition does not prohibit." They are complaining in the strongest terms of the vigorous manner in which the law is being enforced in Iowa. But why do they complain?

The law is in the interest of good morals; of public peace; it will lessen the amount of crime, and of taxes; it will protect the young from the snare of the gilded saloon; it will secure food and clothes to the wives and children of those who have squandered their wages for the means of their own degradation. Can they complain of this? No; this is all desirable. But above all this there is one harrowing thought which troubles them more than the approach of the cholera. What if, after all they have said, it should prove that prohibition does prohibit? The loss of such a precious theory is more than they can bear.

Prohibition is fast coming into favor, and is making rapid strides toward success in almost every direction. Whether it will be materially benefited by separate party action remains to be seen. We do not say it will not; we have as yet no evidence that it will. That the nominee of the Prohibition party will receive a large vote seems improbable. That, however, is no real argument against the step they have taken. If it shall be the means of arousing the public to the importance of the subject, then good will be accomplished. There are difficulties in the way of uniting all the true friends of temperance in a separate party movement. The party, when fully formed, must avow some policy of Government beyond the sole question of temperance. We have seen how difficult it was for the two recent conventions in Chicago to adopt "platforms" suited to the demands of the interests of the whole country. A third party would have to meet this question very soon, and it is no relief to promise "reform" without a distinct policy, as the veriest demagogue in the land can take up this cry as well as the best reformer.

In two States prohibition has been carried to success by the Republican party. In others it has received the strong support of the Democratic party. Whether the Prohibition party can secure these votes is a question. In Maine there is a probability of nearly all the votes going to the old parties, because both parties are fully committed to prohibition.

Success thus far has been achieved by submitting the question in the form of an amendment to be voted upon by all parties. Then every temperance man could vote without sacrificing his political preferences. There is no doubt that prohibition can command a larger vote in that manner than in any other. A third party is pretty sure to put some "plank" in its platform which must alienate some friends of the cause, as was the case in California in 1882. In that case the prohibition vote was scarcely large enough to be noticed. Had the question been submitted as a separate one, to be voted upon by all parties without regard to political questions, the vote would have been very much larger.

It will not do to say that this course has proved a failure in several States. It has proved successful in several States, and where it failed it was not so great a failure as a third-party vote would have been in the same States. To-day a third party cannot command so large a vote in those States as was given in favor of a Constitutional amendment when the vote was taken. It is for this reason we say we have no assurance that the present movement, or the third party, will greatly aid the cause of prohibition.

Intemperance is a monster curse in our land. But it must yet be borne in mind that it is but one of many evils, and the reform sought for, especially by political organization, is partial in its nature. True temperance is a Christian grace, provided it be coupled with the other graces. Separated from them, it is no part of Christianity. We joyfully unite with all workers in the cause of reform, but we can never lose sight of the truth that a thorough reform outside of Christianity is impossible. This is our "platform;" for this we labor; in this we trust. And this we recommend to all as the only source of perfect peace and happiness, for "the life that now is, and that which is to come."