THE PROHIBITION QUESTION

The Cortland News, Friday, February 8, 1884.

The Prohibition Question.

Editor, Cortland News:

   I notice in your issue of Dec. 25,1S83, a piece which was copied from the Binghamton Republican, touching the attitude of Prohibitionists in respect to the question of temperance reform, etc., and stated with such ingenuous confidence I fear that many might be misled by its sophistry, and thus harm might come to a righteous cause; and being assured that you desire a fair discussion of the question of Prohibition in the columns of your excellent paper, I venture a few thoughts in reply.

   The Republican asserts it to be the "misfortune of the Prohibitionists that they can not bring up the masses to their advanced ideas." All things considered, it is a fact to be regretted, but why a misfortune we are unable to conceive. If it can be shown that Prohibitionists are responsible for the indisposition of the masses in respect to their acceptance of their "advanced ideas," or if they are at fault because they have assumed an advanced position upon the subject of temperance reform, then we concede their misfortune; otherwise, not. As soon would we admit our Lord was in misfortune because of a similar failure in bringing up the masses to his advanced ideas of reform.

   He says Prohibitionists "overlook the fact that human character and public sentiment, like every thing in nature, is subject to natural laws of progression and growth." If it be true that Prohibitionists willfully or otherwise shut their eyes to an essential law of progression and growth, either natural or divine, then theirs is the greater misfortune, for they might as soon expect either of the existing parties to lift themselves over the last ditch of their misfortunes by the straps of their boots, as to expect to reach the goal of temperance reform by an utter disregard of the laws of success established by infinite wisdom. This is but an assertion of the "B. R." unsupported by facts.

   Why is Prohibition haste any more against the law of progression and growth than Democratic or Republican slowness? Is it the opinion of the writer in respect to the operation of this law as that stated by "Josh Billings": "If you want to get there quick, go slow?" It is easy to see the classes that are fulfilling the Republican idea of this condition of natural law!

   By what standard of time does he judge? Wisdom says: "Strike while the iron is hot." "Make hay while the sun shines." And the infinite Lawmaker gives a "seed time" as well as a "time of harvest!" The "times and the seasons are with Him!" The sowing and the reaping, according to natural law, are with man! At God's seed-time or time of harvest it is quite important, if we would succeed, to hurry! Slowness here has proved fatal to the crop! "He that will not plow by reason of the cold (because it is unpopular, or because sell-interest stands in the way) shall beg in the harvest and have nothing."

   Again he asks, with an air of triumph, "Can they point to a single reform this world has ever known that has not been accomplished by gradual growth and slow processes?" It is asked with equal force in reply, “Can the Republican point to a single reform the world has ever known that did not have a beginning? That did not have to stoutly and persistently contend against great odds? That was not considered by many as untimely and its advocates too much in a hurry, or where conservatives, both in church and State, were, notwithstanding their complicity with wrong, considered nearest the right? Where expediency was not put in the place of principle?

    "The truth is amply confirmed by experience." History also lifts its warning voice! Read, if you please, the history of Nebuchadnezzar, who, notwithstanding the counsel and exhortations to righteousness, and to show mercy to the poor, given him by Daniel, did not hearken, but became puffed up and was humbled by the reform party! Also, read the history of Belshazzar. While reeling with the intoxicating cup his doom is foretold by the hand-writing on the wall! And it was left for the reform party to interpret its fatal meaning. History sometimes repeats itself. In this, wisdom is justified of her children.

   Prohibitionists do not as a class affect to despise any one, but are sincerely and terribly in earnest, and well they may be when they remember and read daily the sad tales of woe of the damnable traffic; that its heaviest blows fall upon the gentlest and most innocent among us. Nor would they be more intolerant in spirit toward any beyond what the facts warrant.

   Is it the desire of the Republican that Howard Crosby, D. D., and Dio Lewis, M. D., should be accepted as patterns or leaders in temperance reform? Just think of Howard Crosby starting out as a temperance reformer! His manuscript of temperance [line of newsprint illegible—CC editor]…in order to break off his swearing that he must use a few vulgar or less profane words? 
   Dio Lewis would quarantine smallpox and prohibit any extension of its infection. In this he has the sanction of law. In this his theory is correct. Why not prohibit an infection of a worse disease? Why not quarantine the liquor before it has infected its thousands and developed into crime and death? Why not be as logical and consistent in preventing drunkenness and crime as in preventing disease which only contaminates the body? Would he use "poultices" for traumatic gangrene or malignant tumors? Neither will poulticing do for the gangrene of intemperance or this malignant tumor of the rum traffic. It must be treated with the "knife" of prohibition, as it endangers the body politic.

   Its symptoms are apparent. Fifty per cent of insanity comes from strong drink; 75 per cent of all the crimes have their inspiration in the dram shops; 80 per cent of our paupers and 90 per cent of our worthless youth emerge from drunkards' homes.

   Finally, no law is self-executing. The officers and people may be a failure, but not the law, for the law is never a failure, save when its principle is wrong. In constitutional prohibition no personal rights will be invaded. It will not proscribe to any what he shall or shall not eat or drink, only its manufacture and sale as a beverage.

   It is asked, "why not high license?" Because its principle is wrong. It tends to build up an aristocracy in the rum traffic, a monopoly of dram sellers. It is a species of class legislation which is unsafe, because the selling of intoxicants would be an institution of the State, fostered and sanctioned by the State, and would have to be bowed down to as certainly as the three Hebrew children were required to worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar set up. Because the good proposed by it would not counterbalance the evil it would produce. Because it would revive an old system of indulgencies, against which Luther made such a grand fight, with this difference: While they covered sins that were past, these would extend to sins yet to be committed.

PROHIBITIONIST.

East Homer, N. Y., Feb. 4, 1884.

The No-License Question.

Editor of The News:

   On the 19th day of this present month the voters of the town of Cortlandville will be called upon to vote upon the question of license or no-license. It is better to look at the question calmly and with a view to the best interests of the town, rather than in a hot-headed and partisan manner.

   In the town of Cortlandville is situated the village of Cortland, one of the brightest and most prosperous villages in the State of New York. Its business places, its streets and its hotels have always been praised and commended by every visitor. A few years ago the no-license system was tried here, and what was the result? There was as much drunkenness as before, the town lost about one thousand dollars a year in license money, and no one was the better for it. As long as liquor is manufactured it will be drank, no matter how strictly its sale is prohibited.

   The citizens of the village of Cortland all remember the great fire of the 28th of last November. Do they desire to see the corner built up again? Do they take any interest in the prosperity and welfare of the village? Would they like to see a block built on the old corner that would be an ornament to the village, and a building that all could point to with pride? If they do, then let them think of the good sense and business qualities of the owner of that corner. Do they believe that he would put $50,000 or $75,000 in a hotel block, with stores and an opera house, with a vote of the town for no-license for a period of two years staring him in the face? For the vote at town meeting is to decide the question for two years, and not for one, as usual.

   Remember all this, take it into consideration, and then say whether a license vote would not be better for the town, when it would add hundreds of dollars to the treasury, keep the sale of liquor under the most stringent restrictions, and not increase its consumption one iota.

CITIZEN.

Cortland, Feb. 5, 1884.

The Halbert Failure.

   Mr. Frank Bean, one of the sons of the late Jeremiah Bean, formerly of this county, who had let the firm of D. M. & E. G. Halbert have money to the extent of over a hundred thousand dollars, tells on the examination what he knows of their transactions, and when asked if he had any objections to stating how much paper his father was on, replied:

   "No, sir, I have not; but we can't tell yet exactly the amount. Only the other day a note for $5,000, with my father as indorser, was protested. It was dated Oct. 25—the very day that he was taken sick. and the last day that he was ever out of the house. The Halberts followed him to his sick bed, from which he never got up, and there induced him to indorse their worthless paper. He wasn't to do business and hadn't been for a year. I knew that he was indorsing heavily, but I never was able to get any statement from the Halberts showing how much paper he was on. As near as I can tell now it will approximate $200,000, and perhaps exceed that amount.

   "Father was taken sick Oct. 25, 1883. A three months' note, with his indorsement the very day he was taken down with his last illness, came to light Jan. 25. If he indorsed any four month notes the same day, of course we will not be able to know anything about them until the 25th of this month, or thereabouts. The Halberts seemed to have a faculty of getting father to indorse for them whenever they wanted any help. I objected to it and protested against it, and he would promise not to indorse another note for them. But they would go to the house when he was alone, tell him that just a little more help would bring them through all right, and finally succeed in getting his name on another note. D. M. Halbert did all the talking to father, and after he got him to put his name on the notes E. G. Halbert would negotiate them around the country wherever he could.

   "One day last summer a boy rang the side-door bell and asked to see father, saying that he had something for him to sign. I happened to be home and stepped to the door. 1 opened the envelope and found it contained a note with the words 'thousand dollars' on it, but the rest was left blank. I took the note and showed it to father, and asked him what he thought of doing business that way. I told him I was going to Halbert and demand, in his name, a statement of the notes that he was indorser on. Halbert attempted to put me off when I called, and we had some pretty hot words over the matter. That evening Halbert and I met again. He said he wanted to talk with me. During the conversation he promised to get father's name off all the paper, and added that if worst came to worst the Bean family would be protected. You see how he has 'protected' us.

   "A day or two after the failure I was unfortunate enough to meet E. G. Halbert. He said that he wanted to speak to me. 1 replied that he was a scoundrel and I didn't want to talk to him. He said that he simply wanted to explain matters. I told him to go and explain matters to my mother and sisters, whom he had robbed; that I wanted nothing to say or do with him in the future. He hasn't had the face to go to our house and attempt to 'explain matters' as yet. He has had lots of time to take his family away summers on money that my father was foolish enough to let him have, and now we have got to work and pay for it. That is the kind of men the Halberts are. They may live to enjoy the money that they have swindled an old friend seventy-three years of age out of, but I doubt it.

   "I haven't told you half that I could about this matter. Perhaps, at the proper time, I can give you a few more facts that will throw additional light upon the subject. My counsel objects to my talking too much on the matter. I generally get warmed up on the subject, and can you blame me any?"

New York State Assemblyman Theodore Roosevelt.

Item.

   The Liquor Dealers' Association and the Prohibitionists have again allied their forces, this time at Albany in a union effort to defeat the Roosevelt high license law. It seems impossible that the liquor interests can always have such a trustworthy and ever-ready ally to defeat every practical temperance movement, unless there is a perfect understanding and a liberal use of money to keep it in the field. Yet it is not probable, or even possible, that the mass of inharmonious temperance workers, who really believe they are in advance of public sentiment, know anything about any arrangement by which they are regularly brought to the rescue of an unlimited and ungoverned liquor traffic. A person of fair discernment ought to be able to see at a casual glance where the cat is in the meal.—Binghamton Rep.