ART. V. THE PROHIBITORY LIQUOR LAW.

THE character of drunkenness, and of whatever tends to drunkenness, admits of no doubt, if we take the Scriptures for the rule of judgment in the case. It is only when we leave the high ground of religious morals, and come down to the comparatively low position of merely civil order, that any difficulty occurs in treating intemperThe reason is plain enough: Churches are voluntary, select, and elevated, professedly taking for their rule of life the practical code of the New Testament; but states are mostly made up of involuntary members, have little selection of character or elevation of purpose, and rarely if ever adopt the New Testament as the only constitutional law. Hence, in the treatment of moral questions the state must always be less efficient than the Church.

But such is and has been the character of the liquor traffic,-such its power for good or evil, in the public estimation,-that civil government could not pass it by. In all countries not absolutely savage, the traffic has been the subject of legislation in some form; but most commonly the object aimed at has been restriction and regulation, rather than extirpation. The excise laws-usually tolerant enough-have too generally been an embodiment of all the legislation on this important subject. While the use of intoxicating liquor was deemed necessary to health, of course no greater severity was demanded than might be considered essential to the revenues of the country. No punitive measures were called for, because the traffic was not deemed an offence against the best interests of society. On the contrary, the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors were considered honourable pursuits, and justly entitled to the encouragement and protection of the law. Licenses were issued for the simple reason that meritorious individuals-that is, individuals of "good moral character"-asked for them; and asked for them, too, for the accommodation of the public at large. It was supposed that such provisions or refreshments as a license called for, could not be denied without injustice. So necessary, in fact, was this kind of commerce that, in selecting staples for taxation, the liquor traffic was placed side by side with the salt business, the tonnage of ships, and foreign importations. The paltriness of the expense attendant upon license, when viewed as a fine for the purpose of checking the sale of ardent spirits, is such as to forbid our regarding it in that light. It was not designed to repress the traffic; it could not have been designed for such an object, for the very sufficient reason that, at the time the

excise law was granted, the traffic was esteemed useful. Spirituous liquors were ranked among the necessaries of life. They were often regarded as a luxury also-thus combining two characters in the same article. This double use of intoxicating drinks is still recognised by the Temperance Pledge, which makes us promise that "we will not provide them as an article of entertainment, or for persons in our employment."

As things stood at this period, the license law was justified by every consideration that can uphold any law which has for its object an increase of the revenues of the government. It was as unexceptionable as the duty on salt, or the tonnage on ships,-fiscal expedients that surely never were designed to produce discouragement in the branches of enterprise which they represent. The expenses of government, unless collected by direct taxation, must be assessed upon some branch of manufactures or commerce, which, from its intimate connexion with the wants of all, will most effectually equalize the burden. And this necessity still exists in all its force; so that, but for a change of public opinion, the income arising from licensing the sale of ardent spirits would be as popular and as much approved at this hour as that arising from the duty on salt. In the course of Providence, an entire revolution of opinion has occurred touching the nature of ardent spirits, and the commerce in them. Alcoholic liquors, instead of being regarded as an essential, or even an innocent beverage, are now justly deemed as one of the most needless and ruinous articles ever brought into public use. Alcohol, once pronounced genial and wholesome in the highest degree, is now known to be a pernicious stimulant and a virulent poison.

The change which passed over the public mind of this country some years since, was more than sufficient to produce the numerous voluntary associations that sprung up either at that time, or not long subsequently. But these temperance societies, diversified and multiplied though they were, did not possess power to crush the evil against which their efforts were directed; nor did the advance of these societies, through successive changes greatly for the better, render them competent to their task. The Total Abstinence and Washingtonian organizations failed, as did those which only exacted abstinence from distilled spirits. The same is true of the various orders of temperance societies having, among other peculiarities, secrecy as one of their elements. None of them, nor all of them combined, have been able to suppress the liquor traffic. Much they have done, and they are entitled to high credit for their exertions; but there is a further work to which they are manifestly incompetent. Intemperance has a power for evil which is altogether beyond the correc

tive force of voluntary organizations, constituted as temperance societies have been and must continue to be. These societies cannot clothe themselves with civil powers; they have no right to deal with property or person, except in the feeble and limited manner peculiar to such organizations. A society for the promotion of honesty might expel the thief from their communion, if he had by any means joined them, but they would have no right to pursue him further; they would have to avail themselves of the civil law for the infliction of adequate punishment, and the restoration of stolen property. The same necessity precisely now rests upon the friends of temperance. They have pursued their objects-the extirpation of the traffic and the suppression of intemperance-as far as the means in their power will go, and are now obliged to fall back upon the civil law for assistance. Further argument and persuasion have their uses, but they are not so much in demand at this juncture as is a readjustment of the municipal law.

We are aware that civil law is not to be relied on for Christian reformation. Something more is requisite to reach the heart and sanctify it; but at the same time it is just as obvious that the gospel is not always available for these slighter reforms demanded in merely civilized society. We do not depend upon Christian morality for the collection of taxes or the suppression of riots. A less refined and exalted species of goodness will accomplish these subordinate reforms. While, therefore, we do not depend upon legislation to do the work of religion, neither do we depend upon religion to do the work of legislation. The appeal to law has reference only to what properly belongs to law; it is no anxious alliance which the Church is seeking to form with the state, in order to strengthen the spiritual by a coalition with the secular power. Society is solicited to do its own work, and that only. Let the civil authorities guard what belongs to them, and the Church will ask no more. The necessities of the case have been amply developed, and for the most part by the Church, in the use of purely voluntary associations; but in this direction she can go no further, inasmuch as it is not hers to compel by other than moral means. She may render the guilt and shame of the liquor traffic as palpable as that of counterfeiting; but in the former case, as in the latter, she is, "and of right ought to be," wholly without the power of physical coercion. In a word, there are certain faults the existence and character of which the Church may demonstrate, although the state alone can apply a remedy.

Here, however, a grave question arises. The right of the state to interpose for the suppression of the liquor traffic is boldly denied; and it is also affirmed that the law, if enacted, must prove a nullity,

as its execution is believed to be impossible. Happily, at the present time, experience may be brought to the aid of legislation. A prohibitory liquor law has already been enacted in several states, and no unusual difficulty has attended its administration. The experiment thus far is hopeful indeed, and fully justifies similar action on the part of other states. The Maine Law, in Maine,-despite the wilful and shameless misrepresentations of its enemies,—is a beneficent fact in the history of legislation. A similar law in Massachusetts is, with slight exceptions, effecting equally beneficial results; and the same is true wherever the people have had courage to undertake this work. So much for actual results of the experiment. Guided by these, there need be no mistake; but we are not obliged to wait and judge of this law by its practical developments. It is one of those obvious requirements too imperatively necessary to gain any additional force from their effects. An argument does not increase hunger; nor can legislation augment the instinctive grasp of our nature for protection. However defective a priori reasoning may be in some cases, it is abundantly conclusive here. Those who know the nature of alcohol and the nature of man, cannot require to be told what will be the effect of the former upon the latter. As well might one be ignorant of the effects of fire upon the human system. But the exercise of legislation and the application of law to society are matters of great importance; and so many causes combine to mislead both law-makers and law-keepers, that it is often necessary to state and restate the reasons which govern, or should govern, in the enactment of wholesome statutes. We shall, therefore, present a brief view of the argument in favour of the proposed law. In the outset of this discussion two questions, and but two, meet us:-1. What are the rightful conditions or antecedents of municipal law? 2. Do these conditions or antecedents characterize the Prohibitory Liquor Law?

On the first of these questions but little need be said, and we shall barely lay down a few general principles. The following conditions seem to be required in the enactment of municipal law :1. The law should be demanded by the public good.

2. It should relate to such things as human authority is competent to determine.

3. It should apply equally and impartially to every member of the community.

We will now apply these principles to the law under consideration. 1. In showing that a prohibitory liquor law is demanded by the public good, the traffic necessarily comes under review in its length and breadth. Its economical, physical, moral, social, and political

aspects demand attention. It will be impossible to exhaust either of these topics, or even to give any considerable portion of the reliable statistics which may be brought to bear upon the argument. But we shall venture a few remarks upon each point:

(1.) The cost of intemperance has never been fully estimated, and never can be by human powers. Its boundless ramifications of waste and ruin set at defiance all but the Infinite Mind. The cost of this traffic involves a great variety of particulars: as first, the materials wasted in the manufacture of ardent spirits; secondly, the money paid for the article when manufactured and brought into market; thirdly, the loss of time, and disqualification for business, occasioned by the use of such liquors; fourthly, the expense of criminal and civil prosecutions made necessary by the crimes and poverty engendered by the traffic; fifthly, the sickness, pauperism, decay, and idiocy consequent to the inebriate himself, and to most or all connected with him.

Some of the items in this catalogue are overwhelming. We have no means of estimating the vast amount of grain and other materials consumed in the manufacture of intoxicating liquors, and therefore must of necessity pass over the first and most egregious loss to the public. What numbers might be fed on the grain destroyed by a single distillery in the course of a year! But as we have no data for calculations of this kind we pass to the second particular-the cost of the article when manufactured. A very careful hand prepared, a few years since, the following statement of the quantity of liquor drunk annually, and the amount paid for it, in the countries here named:

These incredible sums, be it remembered, are to be added to the loss sustained by the waste of grain in the process of distilling. But taken alone, these sums are nearly equal to the entire annual revenue of the countries respectively above named; and when we add the loss occasioned by the destruction of valuable grains in the manufacture of alcoholic beverages, the expense far exceeds the cost of government in any country on the globe. The annual consumption of ardent spirts in Ireland alone, is twenty-three million three hundred thousand gallons, the cost of which, as it reaches the consumer, cannot be much, if any, less than thirty-five million dollars; and this enormous waste of money and of bread