The Menace of Prohibition Part 1

The Menace of Prohibition.

by Lulu Wightman.

PREFACE

Most writers, in viewing the question of Prohibition, have followed along a beaten track. They have confined themselves generally to consideration of moral, economic, and religious phases of the subject.

While I have not entirely ignored these phases, I have chiefly engaged in the task of pointing out a particular phase that it appears to me entirely outweighs all others put together; namely, that of the effect of Prohibition, in its ultimate and practical workings, upon the political--the structure of American civil government.

I have endeavored to steer clear of its professions and obsessions, all of which can be of little consequence in the light of my contention that the major matter with which Prohibition is concerned is the capture and overturning of our present system of jurisprudence; and that the danger threatening from this tendency is real and foreboding I have conscientiously tried to make clear in these pages.

That National Prohibition is an approaching enemy to free government, of which the people should be warned even at the risk of being grossly misunderstood, is my opinion. From the watch-towers of American liberty the warning should go forth. For my own part, I feel well-repaid with the conscientious effort I have made in "The Menace of Prohibition."

LULU WIGHTMAN.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.--_The Declaration of Independence._

=John Stuart Mill defines Prohibition in this language:=

"Prohibition: A theory of 'social rights' which is nothing short of this--that it is the absolute right of every individual that every other individual shall act in every respect exactly as he ought; that whosoever fails thereof in the smallest particular violates my social rights and ent.i.tles me to demand from the legislature the removal of the grievance. So monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty;--there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify."

And in the light of the last sentence, "so monstrous a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty;--there is no violation of liberty which it would not justify," the writer would especially examine this modern crusaders movement for Prohibition. Many other writers have viewed the question from sociological, economic, and religious standpoints; but the =principle= of the thing,--that in which it is based--a "monstrous" principle, which, as Mill says, "=is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty=," deserves more serious consideration than any other phase of the question: a principle, in fact, of intolerant coercion as against the great principle of individual liberty so thoroughly established as the inherent right of the citizen at the very inception of this government in the Western world.

To do justice to this particular phase of the question of Prohibition--a principle so dangerous and "monstrous" that there is "no violation of liberty which it would not justify"--it is necessary to be courageous, honest, unafraid, and not "soaked to the pulp in the pseudo-puritanical, moral antiseptic bath of conventional prejudices." Here in America we have had enough of base misrepresentation, rotten hypocrisy, and sugar-coated sentimentality. What we really need now is honesty of purpose and courage of conviction, let the criticizing mob be of "the upper ten thousand or lower," it matters not.

A False Principle

=What Is the Real Menace of Prohibition?=

It is the false =principle= from which it derives its life and being. "We are the good people," say the moral reformers: "you are the bad; therefore it is the duty of the good people to seek control of the government and to enact laws that will make you bad people good." The platform of the Prohibition Party of Ohio states it in a different way, but in essence it is the same thing:

"The Prohibition Party of Ohio ... recognizing Almighty G.o.d, revealed in Jesus Christ, and accepting the law of G.o.d as the ultimate standard of right ... the referendum in all matters of legislation not distinctively moral."

In this scheme of government, as it is plainly revealed, "the law of G.o.d" as it would be =interpreted= by the Prohibitionists, would be the supreme standard of all matters distinctively moral, and the initiative and referendum would be relied upon, and allowed in all matters of legislation "=not= distinctively moral."

This was exactly what happened in the Dark Ages and early New England: "good people" sought and secured the control of the government, "the law of G.o.d" was made "the ultimate standard of right" as interpreted by the "good people" in power, and the "bad people" were put to the torture.

As the result of just such a scheme, barbaric practices reigned in the name of law: thumb-screw and rack were brought into requisition, Calvin burned Servetus, Quakers were hanged and witches burned, Roger Williams banished, and Mary Dyer hung by the neck until she was dead,--and all because "Almighty G.o.d, revealed in Jesus Christ," was recognized in government, and "the law of G.o.d" made the ultimate standard of right.

But between "Almighty G.o.d" and "the law of G.o.d" there always stood the interpreter of that law, and the bigoted, blinded, fanatical follower of Creed who mistook his creed for G.o.d, and his =will= and =opinion= for the law of G.o.d. Had G.o.d and His law been left alone, no possible harm could have resulted.

Under this scheme of religious and moral government, Jews, agnostics, and non-Christian elements, and even Christians that do not acquiesce in the scheme, have no recognition; and under the administration of the moral reform element would have no place in the country, except on sufferance! And just what would happen to people who repudiated a church-and-state system of government like this! Let us see:

The Prohibitionist invariably argues that "the G.o.d of the Bible"

authorizes Prohibition in civil government; it is religious, and a Bible doctrine, he contends, and therefore should receive recognition not only by the people, but by the government as well; and all who cannot, whether from conscientious scruples or other reasons, agree with them, are opponents of "the G.o.d of the Bible," of true religion, and of government. Very frequently the charge of "anarchist" is hurled against those who cannot agree with them, and ofttimes the most unscrupulous and un-Christian methods are resorted to, to crush out all opposition. And what the opponents of Prohibition might expect, if Prohibition ever reaches the zenith of political power, may be determined from a statement by Rev. E. B. Graham, in a speech made at York, Neb. He said:

"We might add, in all justice, if the opponents of the Bible do not like our government and its Christian features, let them go to some wild and desolate land, and in the name of the devil and for the sake of the devil, subdue it, and set up a government of their own on infidel and atheistic ideas; and then if they can stand it, stay there till they die."

The foregoing, at least, shows some of the Christian features (?) of the program of the Reform party. The program winds up with the banishment of the minority to some wild and desolate land where they may remain until they die! The trouble is, if liberty-loving citizens of the United States, jealous of their rights and const.i.tutional guaranties and determined to preserve them even to the point of quitting their beloved country, should go to some wild and desolate land, and set up a government where they could enjoy religious and personal freedom, it would not satisfy the Prohibition moral-reform forces. All past history shows that they would follow to the wild and desolate land, and destroy, if possible, every vestige of such government as was opposed to their narrow and intolerant ideas!

Political Power the Object

The initiative and referendum is good enough for the Prohibition Party when applied to "all matters of legislation not distinctively moral;"

but when morals are involved, "the law of G.o.d" only is binding, and the initiative and referendum is repudiated. Their =interpretation= of the demands of "the law of G.o.d"--not actually the law itself--would become the supreme law of the land, and all the power of the government, in their hands, would be set to enforcing it. Need it be said that this would be repeating the history of the Dark Ages and Medieval times in the most accurate detail!

Mr. Eugene W. Chafin, Prohibition candidate for president, in 1912, said:

"I don't want any person who claims to be a party Prohibitionist--a middle-of-the-road Prohibitionist--ever to sign another pet.i.tion, or ask Congress or any legislature anywhere under the American flag to pa.s.s any prohibitive laws on the liquor question. We don't want any laws of any kind whatever pa.s.sed. =All we want is to be elected to power....= Elect us to power, and we will repeal a few laws and do the rest by =interpretation= of the const.i.tution and =administration= of the government."

Mr. Ferdinand Cowle Inglehart, N. Y., Supt., of the Anti-Saloon League, in the =Review of Reviews=, February, 1915, page 216, said:

"The pastors and members of the churches turned the State (Oregon) into =an organized political camp=."

This was indeed a frank confession upon the part of Mr. Inglehart. He might have truthfully added that it was the Anti-Saloon League which was the moving spirit that invaded the churches and spurred on the "pastors and members of the churches" to turn the sovereign State of Oregon into "=an organized political camp=." A political camp is, beyond question, organized for political ends. Prohibition in Oregon, as elsewhere, was the "Cheshire cheese," and political power the goal of its ambition. And now in Oregon, as elsewhere, we shall hear the cry: "Now that we have Prohibition, we must fill the public offices with 'good men' to enforce the law: 'turn the rascals out' and put good men in office"; and, of course, "good men" must be Prohibitionists always. None others need apply. Oh, it is a fine scheme; but unfortunately, it takes no cognizance of the =minority=--those who are quite equal in American citizenship, and who lose none of their civil rights by virtue of their being the =minority=.

Political Activities at Washington

Mr. L. Ames Brown, in "Prohibition and Politics," published in the =North American Review= of December, 1915, points to some of the features of the Anti-Saloon League programme, in the nationalization of prohibition--a very interesting and valuable contribution upon the subject. Very accurately--and apparently without any prejudices--Mr. Brown shows the workings of the Prohibitionists in the political.

He calls attention to the Prohibition rider in the District of Columbia Appropriation Bill, "an amendment to the District Bill to foist prohibition upon the people of the District without a referendum," and continuing, says:

"The Prohibitionists, with one or two exceptions, refused to listen to suggestions that the legislation be submitted to a vote of the District of Columbia, thus disregarding the principle of self-government which they had agitated so vigorously in local option campaigns."

In this attempt to force the people of the District to submit to their dictation, and to keep them from voting upon the measure, the Prohibitionists showed clearly that they were =without regard for the sentiment of the people to be affected=. This was evidently one of those "distinctively moral" questions upon which the people are not supposed to vote--or at least are not to be allowed to vote, if the Prohibitionists can have their way--but in this act at the seat of government, they have, indeed, given proof of their absolute disregard for the principle of self-government which they prate so much about in local option campaigns. They have shown to what lengths they would go, if they could.

Mr. Brown is authority for the statement that had this District Bill gone to President Wilson without a provision for a =referendum=, he would have immediately vetoed it.

According to Mr. Brown, the Anti-Saloon League is strongly intrenched at Washington. He says that it "maintains at Washington one of the most powerful lobbies ever seen at the National Capital," and regarding its influence upon the nation's law-makers he has this to say: