Drunkenness and Temperance Legislation
By Editor
THE Interior rejoices that Minnesota has made drunkenness a misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment, and says that, by this action, "much sentimentalism for the 'poor drunkard' is done for." We have no special objection to urge against imposing a fine and imprisonment for drunkenness, only as we have before taken occasion to remark, we would like to see the saloon-keeper share all such penalties. We do not believe in throwing the protection of the law around the tempter, and at the same time visiting its penalties upon his miserable victims. We fail to see any victory for temperance in such legislation. However, we suppose that as it does not interfere with the whisky business, it is not an infringement of "personal liberty." OUR readers have learned from past numbers of the SIGNS of the terrible floods in Pennsylvania, and the losses occasioned thereby both of property and life. Those who are dead are beyond earthly help, but there has been a liberal response from all parts of the country for the necessities of the living. Among the sufferers at Williamsport was the Pennsylvania Tract and Missionary Society. Williamsport was its headquarters, where it had recently located. It lost its entire stock of publications to the amount of $1,500. As soon as the Pacific Press learned of this, the following action was taken at a meeting of the board of directors, held in this city, June 24:— WHEREAS, We learn that the Pennsylvania Tract and Missionary Society has lost about one thousand five hundred dollars' worth of publications in the recent flood, therefore, Resolved, That we deeply regret the loss which this society has sustained, and that we express our sympathy by donating to said society two hundred dollars' worth of any publications issued by this office. THE San Francisco Chronicle of May 28 says that "those who looked forward to wine taking the place of whisky as the drink of the American people, may take heart from the statistics of the last half century." To put it briefly, these figures show that in 1840 the consumption of distilled liquors in the United States amounted to 2.62 gallons for each person, while in 1880 the consumption was only 1.23 gallons per capita. We cannot see, however, why any should take heart at this, unless, indeed, it may be those who are interested in wine growing, as are many persons in California. The idea that the consumption of wine and beer tend to decrease drunkenness, is a most hurtful deception. In some respects the practice of drinking wine is more hurtful than that of drinking stronger liquors. Wine-drinking countries show a larger per cent. of insanity than those countries where stronger liquors are consumed. California enjoys the unenviable notoriety of having a larger number of insane per thousand in its population than any other State, and this is said by those who are in a position to know the truth of what they affirm, to be largely due to wine drinking. What we need in this country is not more wine drinking, but less whisky drinking, less beer guzzling, in short, less dissipation.