Newspaper Page Text
6
HE recent correspondence betw T een
the Editor of The Golden Age bears
the followingfruitage in Orem’s
Weekly Bulletin, Boston:
Mr. A. J. Orem,
Dear Sir:
I thank you for the literature
sent me. Your letter to Mr. Up
shaw and Mr. Chafin’s “Govern-
T
ment by Administration” seem to me sound,
but both are based on an assumption which I
have never been able to accept.
The assumption is, “That any use of any in
toxicating liquor as a beverage is fundament
ally wrong per se.” You may reply that that
is not the assumption, but rather this, “that
the evils resulting from the use of intoxicating
liquors as a beverage are so great that the ma
jority of the people are warranted in carrying
out an administrative policy of prohibition.
But the reason, it seems to me, why so many
good people do not become prohibitionists and
why “enforcement” of stringent laws is so dif
ficult is that the second assumption needs the
moral support of the first. And the first as
sumption is not generally accepted. The mod
erate use of intoxicants as a beverage is not put
in the same category morally as is the moder
ate appropriation of other people’s property.
People hesitate to pass a law making criminal
the abstemious or even moderate use of (say,
to make the point emphatic) the milder fer
mented liquors. The distinction between high
grade and Ipw grade intoxicants, distilled and
fermented liquors does not meet the approv
al of temperance workers.
Our local option, anti-saloon laws, do not
intend such stringency as to make it impossi
ble for any man to have liquor on his private
table. The farmer may make bis own cider,
or wine from his grapery. There is no seri
ous obstacle put in the way of the man who
wishes intoxicants brought to his private larder
as his groceries are brought.
The condemnation of sparing or moderate
use of intoxicants as a beverage rests on infer
ence from the moral attitude which an intel
ligent person may thus be taking: 1. The
personal risk of losing control; 2. The exam
ple for the weaker brother.
To sum up and close; there is no shadow of
a doubt in my mind that there are good and
incontrovertible reasons why one may prohib
it intoxicants for himself and diligently edu
cate and advise others into doing the same;
but when I think of starting out for a commun
ity wide, State wide, nation wide administra
tive prohibition J am conscious of the weak
spot in my armor mentioned at the opening of
this letter.
Cordially,
Orem’s Reply Is “Nuff Sed.”
October 14, 1912.
Rev. ,
Dear Sir:
I wish to thank you for your courteous let
ter acknowledging receipt of letter and litera
ture sent you, as well as for the courtesy and
frankness shown by you in dealing with same.
Owing to press of business, I have not found
time to answer until now.
I am not aware that either my letter to Mr.
Upshaw or Mr. Chafin’s “Government by Ad
ministration” rests upon the assumption “That
any use of any intoxicating liquor as a bever
age is fundamentally wrong per se.” While
I believe and am prepared to argue from a tem
perance and moral standpoint that such use is
wrong, yet that is an entirely different ques
tion from the one contended for by all intel
ligent Prohibitionists,
OREM’S OVERWHELMING LOGIC
The Golden Age for November 7, 1912.
Confounding the Moral and Legal Contention.
The evils resulting from the USE of intoxi
cants is a moral question and must be reached
through “moral suasion.” The evils resulting
from the SALE of intoxicants is a government
al and legal question and must be regulated or
•prohibited by law. Its USE is a personal mat
ter and the moral respousi' 'lily rests with the
individual. Its licensed SALE affects the wel
fare of the community, state and nation, and
the moral responsibility rests upon the govern
ment. The former is a matter for the preach
er and moralist —the latter commands the at
tention of the economist and statesman.
Annihilation and Not Regulation.
The Prohibition platform says nothing about
the USE of alcoholic drinks. It says: “ALL
LAWS TAXING OR LICENSING A TRAFFIC
WHICH PRODUCES CRIME, POVERTY AND
POLITICAL CORRUPTION, AND SPREADS
DISEASE AND DEATH SHOULD BE RE
PEALED.” In taxing or licensing the traffic,
the general government recognizes it as a bus
iness, and is placed under obligations to pro
tect it as such. Prohibitionists believe that
any system of taxing the evil is wrong and
should be annulled.
Re, the second assumption: “That the evils
resulting from the use of intoxicating liquors
as a beverage are so great that the majority of
people are warranted in carrying out an ad
ministrative policy of Prohibition. ’ ’ Here,
again, you apply the word USE instead of the
word SALE. As an economist, separate from
a moralist, the Prohibitionist pays little atten
tion to the USE of alcohol as a beverage. It is
the SALE which he wishes to prohibit and not
the USE. If our government will go out of
partnership with the business and thus deprive
the traffic of its power to make money under
the protection of law, we believe that its USE
can safely be left in the hands of the preacher
and jnoralist.
In my judgment, your letter fails to give the
real reason why “enforcement of stringent
laws” are so difficult. I believe the reason is
because the government, through taxation,
grants the privilege to a few to make immense
sums of money through its SALE. For the
purpose of perpetuating this privilege, the few
maintain a lobby in Washington. Immense
sums of money are spent in sustaining a pro
paganda which is used in subsidizing the press,
corrupting our courts, legislatures and people.
False statements and arguments are constantly
flaunted before the eyes of the public through
the press. The same false statements are re
peated orally and dinned in the ear of the voter
through the public speaker who is willing to
sell his talents in a wrong cause. Through
these agencies, the good sense and judgment
of the people are so warped bv the corrupt use
of money that they are unable to see the full
extent of the evil. Like you, they confound its
USE with its SALE, and seem to believe that
the little Gideon band of Prohibitionists are
seeking to deprive them of their personal rights
and liberties. In reality, we are simply seek
ing changes in government which will make
it easy for a man to do right and hard for him
to do wrong, while under present conditions
the reverse is true.
We Must Not Recognize the “Sale.”
Regarding the workings of the Anti-Saloon
League and the system of local option, as
practised in Massachusetts and some other
States: You say, it is the intention under this
system to allow a man to have liquor on his
private table and allow the farmer to make his
own cider and wine. As stated above, those
matters do not concern me much, if we can
force our government to go out of the liquor
business. It seems to me that the real dif
ference between Prohibitionists and Anti-Sa
loon Leaguers is the difference between regula
tion and prohibition. The A. S. L., seems to
recognize the rum traffic in one community
while voting it out of another. The Prohibi
tionists give it no recognition or toleration any
where. Since the traffic is national, local op
tion as a remedy is entirely inadequate. The
people may vote it out of one community or
state, but their wishes are ignored by the
liquor interests who ship it into such territory
through the express companies and are protect
ed by the national government and its courts.
The Anti-Saloon people recognize the princi
ples of local option and regulation. Prohibi
tionists deny both. The latter claim that if
it is wrong for liquor to be sold in one com
munity, it is wrong for it to be sold in another.
They deny that the evil can be successfully reg
ulated. Regulation has been tried in this
country for over 50 years under the license sys
tem and wherever such system has prevailed,
drinking and drunkenness have steadily in
creased. Hence, regulation does not regulate,
and local option is entirely too local and too
optional for me. I confess that I have not
much sympathy with the idea of driving an
evil from my own hearthstone and leaving it
free to destroy my neighbor.
Therefore, it seems to me that the questions
you raise have nothing to do with the things for
which Prohibitionists contend. Yet from a
moral and Christian standpoint, I cannot agree
with you that any use of any intoxicating
liquor as a beverage is not fundamentally
wrong per se. The moderate drinker and the
drunkard are traveling the same road —the
former is not so far along.
Some people define temperance to be modera
tion as opposed to total abstinence. To my
mind this definition is wrong and misleading.
It would justify a man in the moderate use of
profanity, or in stealing in moderation, or in
abusing his family in moderation. A better
definition is the following: “Moderation in
the use of all good things and total abstinence
from all things harmful.” The use of intoxi
cating drinks, be they ever so mild or moderate,
will come under the class of “things harmful.”
The evidence of this from every day observa
tion is so conclusive that it hardly admits of a
question.
Again, of all the hundreds of thousands of
men who fill drunkards’ graves, there is prob
ably not one who took his first drink expecting
to die a drunkard. This being the case, Ido
not feel warranted in saying that there is no
harm per se in the moderate use of drink even
at my own table in my own home. Knowing
ing that the drink habit leads to ignominious
and untimely death, and that the moderate use,
persisted in, forms the habit, which is claiming
more victims than war, famine and pestilence
combined, I cannot lead myself to believe that
it is harmless in itself. How any Christian
father or mother can find any excuse in en
couraging the habit in their family and before
their children, is beyond my comprehension.
Yours for the best means of handling a great
evil,
Boston, Mass. A. J. OREM.
“Esther Ferrall’s Experiment”
By Mrs. O. S. Payne, beautifully bound
in white and gold, only sl.lO postpaid. :
Address, 814 Austell Bldg., Atlanta, Ga.