3356.— Prohibiting the Manufacture of Alcohol
By Editor
Is it right to petition Congress to enact laws that would totally forbid the manufacture of alcohol in any and all of its forms, regardless of object and purpose? P. 1. We do not see any reason for asking for so broad a prohibition. Alcohol is very useful in many of the arts, sciences, and industries, in which men do not use it internally. Denatured alcohol is used as both a fuel and power generator. 2. As to alcohol used in the manufacture of beverages, or beverages containing alcohol, habit-forming and intoxicating, that is another matter. Our correspondent seems to think that the natural rights of man are invaded in prohibition. Let us see: a. Among the natural inalienable rights of man named in the Declaration of Independence are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The object of government is to secure these rights to their subjects, and protect their subjects in the exercise and enjoyment of these rights. b. These rights are mutual and equal. The rights of one do not contravene the rights of another. The one's rights end where the other's begin in all mutual matters. One has a perfect right to swing his hands about his own head and in contact with his own nose, but he may not thus treat his neighbor. One may keep his own field entirely fallow and barren, but he can not control his neighbor's. A woman may wear whatsoever shape hat—coal hod or peach basket—she pleases; but when she wears one so broad that it projects beyond her person and into the eyes of her neighbors, she is transcending her own rights and invading her neighbor's. A man might sow his field with noxious weeds if he could guarantee to keep them within his own boundary; but when the seeds begin to fly over the neighborhood, he has transcended his rights, and the sowing of that seed should be prohibited. The same principle holds good regarding various pests which trouble grains and fruits. c. If a man could keep his attack of smallpox or of black measles to himself, it would be his right to go where he would and could; but when that liberty becomes a menace to the health and life of his neighbors and a burden upon the community, he is infringing the rights of others. d. Does not the manufacture and sale of alcohol fall into the same category? Is not the thing itself a curse, a pest, a plague upon the community? Look upon the misery it causes, the wrecked homes, the worse than orphans and widows, the feeder of crime it is, and the cost upon the community in consequence of crime and pauperism. It were better to lose the use of alcohol in art and science than to allow it to continue its awful work of brutalizing manhood, of wrecking homes, corrupting politics, of fostering crime, of burdening government and communities with debt and dishonor, and the children of the drunkards with odium and disgrace. But the prohibition need not include denatured alcohol, alcohol for many purposes which could not be used in the manufacture of beverages. e. But accursed as the whole business is, we do not believe that wholesale prohibition ought to be made immediately operative without some compensation to the man forced out of business, a business in which the licensing government has been a partner, and should be held particeps criminis in its wrong-doing. We believe the government and all its subjects would be great gainers if absolute prohibition could take place at once, and the dealers in the awful traffic be justly compensated for their loss in property, the liquid portion of which could be used and rendered as impossible of consumption as wood alcohol. f. But there are other relationships of man with which government may not meddle, and that is his relations to God. These are above human legislation.