



Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at
http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images
generously made available by The Internet Archive/American
Libraries.)









  THE MENACE
  _of_
  PROHIBITION


  BY LULU WIGHTMAN

  ADVOCATE OF CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.


  They that can give up essential liberty to
  obtain a little temporary safety deserve
  neither liberty nor safety.--_Patrick Henry_


  Price 10 Cents

  Los Angeles Printing Co. 314 West First Street.




+GREAT QUESTIONS OF THE HOUR+

A pamphlet containing a series of Mrs. Wightman's Lectures on themes of
absorbing interest----about the very things that +YOU+ are +THINKING+ and
+TALKING+ about +TO-DAY!+

  --the all-important questions
  --the perplexing questions
  --the paramount questions

Mrs. Wightman's views on public matters--political, religious and
economic--should claim the serious attention of every citizen of the
United States.

A Third Edition necessary to meet the demand

64 pages, with portrait of the author, good paper, clear type,
attractive cover.

PRICE, 25 CENTS, BY MAIL, POSTPAID

Write Name and Address Plainly

Address the Author

Mrs. LULU WIGHTMAN

314 West First St., Los Angeles, Cal.




THE MENACE of PROHIBITION


BY LULU WIGHTMAN


"No man in America has any right to rest contented and easy and
indifferent, for never before, not even in the time of the Civil War,
have all the energies and all the devotion of the American democracy
been demanded for the perpetuity of American institutions, for the
continuance of the American republic against foes without and more
insidious foes within than in the year of grace 1916."

     _--Hon. Elihu Root, in address before the New York State Bar
     Association, Hotel Astor, New York, January 15th, 1916._


Copyright, 1916, 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.




[Illustration: LULU WIGHTMAN.]




CONTENTS


                                      PAGE

  A False Principle                      6

  Political Power the Object             9

  Political Activities at Washington    10

  Prohibition and Sunday Laws           13

  Sumptuary Laws Increasing             14

  A Dangerous Combination               17

  An Old-Time Fallacy                   21

  Industrial Conditions Responsible     23

  The Opinion of an Economist           24

  Effects of Prohibition                26

  Collective Tyranny in Government      29

  Prohibition Censorship Despotic       30




     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 entitles 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 God, revealed in
Jesus Christ, and accepting the law of God 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
God" 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 God" 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 God, revealed in Jesus Christ," was recognized in
government, and "the law of God" made the ultimate standard of right.

But between "Almighty God" and "the law of God" there always stood the
interpreter of that law, and the bigoted, blinded, fanatical follower of
Creed who mistook his creed for God, and his =will= and =opinion= for the
law of God. Had God 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 God 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 God 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 constitutional 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 God" only is binding, and the
initiative and referendum is repudiated. Their =interpretation= of the
demands of "the law of God"--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 petition, or ask
Congress or any legislature anywhere under the American flag to pass any
prohibitive laws on the liquor question. We don't want any laws of any
kind whatever passed. =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 constitution 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:

"Its representatives, backed by an organized influence of public
opinion, are enabled to dictate the attitude of a considerable number of
Congressmen on a pending question, with the result that Congressmen
oftentimes are driven to vote against their own views and their own
consciencies in favor of measures advocated by the lobby."

Mr. Brown gives a very lucid account of the bold and defiant activities
of the powerful Anti-Saloon League lobby at Washington--and as to the
results, he has this to say:

"The harmful effect of such a lobbying enterprise upon our system of
government does not admit of controversy."

Mr. Brown is convincing to the reader in his conclusions of "Prohibition
and Politics" which, to sum up, may be stated as--=A GROWING AND
INSIDIOUS POWER IN THE POLITICAL REALM, INIMICAL TO THE AMERICAN
INSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT=. And if a rapidly growing power, which was
practically unknown a decade ago, is so great in =politics= and
=government= today, what may we expect a decade hence!

The Prohibition movement then, unquestionably, is simply a means to an
end,--the stepping-stone to political power,--the pathway to the goal of
political ambition; and it seems only fair to presume that all the hue
and cry over drunkenness and the inability of some men to control their
natural appetites is, after all, only a minor matter; but the question
of seizing the political power, and filling governmental offices only
with "good men" is the major matter. And the real issue, power to rule
and to enjoy the emoluments of public office. And the real menace, the
overturning of the present system of government wherein the privileges
and rights of the individual are safeguarded, and the setting up of a
new standard of authority, namely, "the law of God" as =interpreted= by
the Prohibitionists and moral reformers. =And it is the interpretation
that is to be feared!=

The remotest possibility of the success of such an unjust, un-American,
illiberal and dangerous form of tyranny in government, should alarm the
American people beyond and above every other question, even that of war;
and should set them to the task of a close analysis of the subject and
trend of Prohibition.

When the true American finds that as a result of the outgrowths of the
"monstrous principle," and under rapidly multiplying laws and
regulations, he is forbidden to dispose of his property as he pleases;
forbidden to amuse himself as he pleases on holidays; forbidden to read
what books he pleases and to look at what pictures he pleases; to dress,
think and drink as he pleases, he will set his face like a flint against
the tyrannical and inquisitorial demands of the modern Crusaders, and he
will attempt to halt their inroads and innovations on the government.
The ballot-box is his opportunity. There he may register his
disapprobation, and put a curb on the restless, uneasy, political
charlatan who, under the guise of moral reform, would seize the
machinery of political government and make it an engine of tyranny and
oppression.

It must be kept in mind that the clerical politicians of the Prohibition
party (no distinction can be made between the Prohibition Party and the
Anti-Saloon League: they are one and the same in intent and purpose) are
interested not merely in the enactment of prohibitory liquor laws. They
want laws prohibiting everything that does not conform to their
interpretation of theological dogmas.




Prohibition and Sunday Laws


They are as determined to secure compulsory Sabbath Day observance laws
as they are to obtain Prohibition laws; and wherever and whenever you
find a movement for one, you invariably find, sooner or later, a demand
for the other. Prohibition and Sunday laws go hand in hand. In fact,
they result from the same cause--the desire to control individuals; the
application in civil law of the fallacious theory that it is "the social
right of every individual that every other individual shall act in every
respect exactly as he ought to act." Nothing is further from the truth
of the principle of free and popular government, and nothing so
destructive of the rights and privileges of man.

Sunday laws can find no justification except in a church-and-state
system of government which essays to establish a practice grounded in
religious belief; to fix upon a particular rest-day, and say to
individuals how they shall observe that day. A compulsory law for Sunday
or Sabbath observance is equivalent to a law for compulsory baptism, or
compulsory church service, or the support of the church: in like manner,
sumptuary laws that determine what one may not drink, may extend to
defining what one may eat, =_ad infinitum_=, until a thousand and one
articles of food and drink are "unlawful"--articles of diet and
consumption that to a large proportion of the citizens may seem
harmless, if not, indeed, beneficial. The Sabbath law says to you what
you must religiously do; and if it may extend to the observance =of a
day=, it may extend to =all= religious duties and practices without
exception: the Prohibition law tells you what you may not =drink=, and if
it presumes the right to prescribe in the matter of drink, it may extend
to the matter of determining what is fit, and what is not fit, =to
eat=--and it could continue until a Dietary List and a Fashion Plate had
been fixed by legal enactment. It is not difficult to see that the
Sunday law and Prohibition are quite identical in character; the source
of their origin must be the same: at least, it is plain that their
introduction and operation =in civil government= is destructive of
personal freedom and choice.




Sumptuary Laws Increasing


These restrictions by law are eternally increasing, so that it has
become almost impossible for a citizen of the republic to live a single
day without violating one or more laws. In almost every relation of life
the conduct of the American is minutely regulated.

Many of these restrictions are founded upon a muddled conception of the
public good: their aim would seem to be to protect the innocent
bystander. But we cannot see how the innocent bystander profits, when
the free citizen is forbidden to go fishing on Sunday, to smoke in
public, to see certain plays, to get Anthony Comstock reports and the
Kreutzer Sonata through the mails; to say in public just what he wants
to say--to exercise freedom of speech; to kiss his girl in the parks, or
a woman to wear abbreviated skirts,--=_ad libitum!_=

These prohibitions burden the individual without conferring any
appreciable advantage upon the mass, or even upon other individuals. The
struggle between two wholly different theories of life--the Puritanical
spirit on one hand, and the Liberal spirit on the other--is on, and it
is becoming fiercer every day. Said Congressman Richard Bartholdt, in a
speech made in the House of Representatives:

"The attempts to further and further restrict our liberties in a Puritan
sense are carried on in the garb of a religious movement, and the
ministers of all churches and the members of all congregations are
constantly called upon for support and money to maintain lobbies in both
the national and state capitals; and these lobbyists are cracking the
whip over our lawmakers, and are urging them to pass more and more
restrictive laws,--laws which in their mistaken zeal, they believe will
make people good. I do not exaggerate, my friends, when I say that if
this movement is not stopped, and stopped soon, the American people
before long will find themselves wrapped up in a network of 'don't's'
which will completely hamper their freedom of action; and instead of
being freemen in all matters of personal conduct, they will be slaves
fettered by the chains of un-American laws.

"Permit me, in this connection, to call attention to a most remarkable
fact; namely, that the people in many cases =actually vote to enslave
themselves=. History tells us of despots who kept their subjects in
perpetual serfdom, and of rulers who robbed the people of their freedom;
but there is no case on record, so far as we know, where the people of
their own volition and by their own votes robbed themselves of their own
birthright. The United States is the first example of this kind. The
history of the human race is =a constant struggle for liberty=, and every
concession wrung from the oppressors was heralded as a new triumph of
progress and civilization. Here we have the example of a generation
which, though being free, =voluntarily surrenders its social liberty and
forges with its own hands the fetters of slavery=. Now, can you account
for that? Is it because we do not sufficiently appreciate our heritage
on the theory that what you inherit and what comes to you easily you do
not value as what you have to fight for yourselves? Or is it because the
people do not fully realize just what they are doing =by joining forces
with those who are conspiring against their highest interests=? I leave
these questions for you to answer. Perhaps we are guilty on both
counts."

If the writer were to answer these questions, she would be constrained
to say that the last count is the strongest count: the people do not
realize what they are doing =by joining forces with those who are
conspiring against their highest interests=. The average American has
become a chronic joiner. He does not stand for something: he must belong
to something. The Prohibition movement comes along and appeals to his
sentimental and emotional nature. He has been schooled to depend
largely on sentiment, and trained to march with the crowd. To act as a
responsible unit has been practically impossible. He has never thought
upon the question deeply; he has been part of a muddled mass of
humanity, thinking as the mass thought and acting as they acted: he has
not been the soul-free individual he imagined himself to be; his acts
and opinions have been nothing more than weak reflections of the
opinions and acts of the muddled mass. He joins the Prohibition forces,
and thereafter thinks less than before, because, being joined to
something, he can safely trust to that something--the organized mass
which, in turn, thinks and acts just as a few self-appointed and
ambitious leaders think and act. There is no more for him to do now than
to walk up to the polls and vote precisely as he is bidden to do. He has
become a real automaton.

And he does not once realize that he has =joined forces with those who
are conspiring against his highest interests=. He helps to pass a law
that takes away his neighbor's rights and privileges, and does not dream
that in so doing he is taking away his own rights and constitutional
guaranties, and as surely undermining the fabric of our free
institutions and thereby hastening national decay and national ruin.




A Dangerous Combination


Prohibitionists, once they are seated upon the throne of civil power, do
not intend to stop at the passage of laws prohibiting the liquor
traffic. As has already been stated, they are fully as interested in
securing compulsory Sabbath observance laws, and in fact, as stated at
the [1]Inter-Church Conference in New York City in 1905, "to secure a
larger combined influence for the churches of Christ in =all matters=
affecting the =moral= and =social= conditions of the people, so as to
promote the application of the law of Christ =in every relation of human
life=." This, indeed, means a wide range of activities, and the
individual citizen may well enquire, and with apprehension, as to just
how far this =combined influence= is to go in its invasion of "=every
relation of human life=." If it actually means what it says, and proposes
to invade "every relation of human life" with a string of laws and
regulations as complex and as multitudinous as the relations of human
lives, the student of political government, if not the citizen, may ask
of this gigantic combination of the so-called moral forces of the
country: =what will be the ultimatum? Where will it all end? What is to
become of the unit of citizenship?=

"Straws show which way the wind is blowing," is an old saying. In this
connection, the following article--a portion of an editorial--that
appeared in the =Sacramento (Cal.) Bee=, Oct. 7, 1915, is both interesting
and significant:

     As a further example of the intolerant, domineering and
     narrow-minded tendencies of the prohibitionists, witness this
     communication recently published by the New York Evening Sun,
     signed "Herman Trent, of the Anti-Saloon League," and dated at
     Englewood, New Jersey:

     "Speaking now in my personal capacity, and not as a member of the
     Anti-Saloon League, I will say I regard the anti-liquor crusade =as
     merely the beginning of a much larger movement=--a movement that
     will have as its watchword 'Efficiency in Government.'

     "If I had my way I would not only close up the saloons and the
     race-tracks. I would close all tobacco shops, confectionery stores,
     delicatessen shops and other places where gastronomic deviltries
     are purveyed--all low theatres and bathing beaches.

     "I would forbid the selling of gambling devices such as playing
     cards, dice, checkers and chess sets; I would forbid the holding of
     socialistic, anarchistic and atheistic meetings; I would abolish
     the sale of tea and coffee, and I would forbid the making or sale
     of pastry, pie, cake and such like trash."

This at least is consistent. And Mr. Trent is startlingly frank in thus
boldly publishing his programme. In a lecture work extending to all
parts of this country and for a quarter of a century of time, I have
found a great many Herman Trents, and I fear they are increasing, and I
know they are becoming emboldened. After all, are we so far removed from
the blue-law regime of early New England? Be certain of one thing:
=today, we would see just such a regime except for a due regard for the
Constitution and a minimum majority of votes=.

As to compulsory Sabbath observance by civil law, we have the
recommendation of the general assembly of the Presbyterian Church, held
in Chicago recently. The resolutions of this national church body were
as follows:

"That the general assembly reiterates its strong and emphatic
disapproval of all secular uses of the Sabbath day, all games and
sports, in civic life, and also in the army and navy, all unnecessary
traveling and all excursions.

"That we most respectfully call attention of all public officials to the
potent influence of their position on all moral questions, and the
necessity of greater care on their part, proportioned to the exalted
nature of their offices which they occupy, that they may strengthen
rather than weaken by their influence public and private observance of
the Lord's day.

"That the general assembly reiterates its emphatic condemnation of the
Sunday newspaper, and urges the members of the Presbyterian church to
refuse to subscribe for it or read it or advertise in it."

Here is a demand for blue laws, pure and simple. If any American citizen
will read the history of the blue laws of Connecticut, and how Cotton
Mather whipped the people through the streets of early New England towns
for failure to attend Sunday services in the meeting-houses, he will
think seriously before lending a helping hand to the work of
re-inaugurating a social and civil system like that.

Prohibition and Sunday laws are so closely allied, so thoroughly
interwoven in the acts and lives of our modern reformers, that I may
venture to say that should the Prohibitionists ever gain complete
political power in this country =we shall see rigid, intolerant Sunday
laws in comparison to which those early blue laws of Connecticut would
be a delicate shade=.

To doubt this, would be to refute the absolute facts that appear. A
Prohibition nation would be, beyond every reasonable doubt, a
religio-politico system of government in which every spark of the
liberties of the people would be extinguished; and this because, as Mill
says, "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."

Therefore, we conclude that the principle underlying and giving rise to
Prohibition, should it obtain everywhere, would crush out every vestige
of =individual liberty=, and its adherents would justify their course by
the "monstrous principle"; namely, that "it is the absolute social right
of every individual that every other individual shall act in every
respect exactly as he ought to act." Prohibitionists must necessarily
stand for this "monstrous principle," and therefore, as certainly as
two and two make four, =Prohibition is a menace to the American system of
government=.




An Old-Time Fallacy


For many years the Prohibitionists have systematically promulgated the
fallacy that the poverty of the working class is caused by drink. And
this they continue to do in face of all the facts, amply proven by all
available statistics, that flatly contradict the fallacy.

On the question of poverty and drink, the opinion of Francis E. Willard
ought to be accepted by the Prohibitionists first of all. She says:

"For myself, twenty-three years of study and observation have convinced
me that =poverty is the prime cause of intemperance=, and that misery is
the mother and hereditary appetite the father of the drink
hallucination.... For this reason I have become an advocate of such =a
change in social conditions= as shall stamp out the disease of poverty
even as medical science is stamping out leprosy, smallpox, and cholera;
and I believe the age in which we live will yet be characterized as one
of those dark, dismal, and damning ages when some people were so dead to
the love of their kind that they left them in poverty without a
heartache or a blush."

An editorial in the =New York World= some time ago contained the following
significant statement:

"Only two families in every hundred of the 1575 which have been in the
care of the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor this
summer were brought to poverty =through intemperance=. The percentage goes
against preconceived notions and is, indeed, surprisingly small. It
should disturb that prosperous complacency which sees in poverty only
or mainly the penalty for wanton misdeed. The Association's report for
1909 showed that intemperance, imprisonment, desertion, 'shiftlessness
and inefficiency,' all told, accounted for not 12 per cent of those
brought to want. The figures for that year showed that 65 per cent of
the poverty was due to two causes--sickness and unemployment."

Carroll D. Wright, in the "Eighteenth Annual Report of the Commission of
Labor," shows that only one-fourth of one per cent of all cases of
non-employment in the United States is due to intemperance.

During the winter months of 1913-14, the number of unemployed men and
women in the United States was appalling. New York, Chicago, San
Francisco, and the large cities, were taxed to the utmost to care for
the "jobless."

It was estimated that New York City had its quota of 400,000 idle,
Chicago 200,000, San Francisco 30,000. Organized armies of the
unemployed clamored for work and for bread, and in the country districts
idle men were everywhere tramping to and fro in search of work. "THE
UNEMPLOYED" was a standing headliner of the public press. Suicides from
inability to find work were startlingly prevalent; and the whole country
was perplexed as to how to adjust complex conditions so as to relieve
untold suffering and misery.

Were the Prohibitionists on hand at that time with any sort of a
program, solution or panacea for the difficulty? Not at all. All their
efforts were reserved for election day; their energies stored up for the
glad time when well-paid agitators travel the country in Pullman cars to
tell the people of rural communities that "poverty is caused by drink."




Industrial Conditions Responsible


The fact of the matter is: that in the time when the situation of the
unemployed is most aggravated--when it attracts nation-wide
attention--singularly enough, no voice was raised, either by
individuals, societies, labor organizations, or the press, publicly,
attributing the abnormal and distressing conditions =to the drink habit=.

All these know better. They know, as the New York Association discovered
by its investigation, that inability to find work, and sickness, has
brought the great army of idle men and women to their plight. They know
that our productive ability is increasing much more rapidly than our
consumptive capacity, and that the statesmen-ship of this country as
well as that of every other country in the world is grappling not with
any merely individual or national, but with a world problem.

They know that in China, with its hundreds of millions of frugal,
temperate, hard-toiling people; in Turkey, with its sober, industrious,
Mahomet-worshiping masses; in India, with its almost countless
thousands, governed by strict religious, moral and ethical codes,--the
trouble is identical: =it is economic=. In the present industrial system
of those lands, as well as our own, there is no longer work enough for
all, not sufficient jobs for the number of toilers, and thus,
necessarily and unfortunately, there must be the great bodies of the
unemployed.

The trouble lies in the industrial and social system, and not in the
individual primarily, whether he be Turk, Chinaman, Hindoo or Christian.
All the statistics gathered from every available source will bear out
the assertion that =the problem is economic=, and it is only unwise
presumption that will even attempt to lay these distressing conditions
and results to the drink habit.

But you may explode this popular fallacy of the prohibitionist into
atoms, and he persistently gathers together the fragmentary portions of
his fanciful theory, and comes back with the same old story and tells it
in the same old way.

Perhaps he realizes that to allow its peaceful demise, means to leave
Prohibition standing absolutely without a remedy for the problem of
unemployment or the general industrial conditions of over-production.
Then, having no practical remedy for intemperance, no remedy for the
ills and troubles of the working-class, and no remedy for anything else,
he should graciously step aside and make room for the real
world-movements for improvement and progress along rational and
practical lines of individual and national development.

He ought to realize that in the final analysis all evils are connected
with life itself, for evil is not in things, but in men or women who
abuse or misuse things. And he should recognize the patent truth that
"you cannot legislate men by civil action into the performance of good
and righteous deeds."




The Opinion of an Economist


Mr. J. B. Osborne, in "The Liquor Question--Political, Moral and
Economic Phases," says:

"The abolition of poverty and better education for the masses, are the
only remedies for the disease of alcoholism.

"Alcoholism, however, is not as prevalent as Mr. Chafin or the usual
advocate of Prohibition would have you believe. United States reports
for 1909 show the average number of deaths attributed to alcoholism to
be only 2811; from scalds and burns, 6772; from drowning, 5387; from
poison, 3390; from suicide, 5498; while killed and maimed on railroads
we have a total of about 18,000.

"Certainly no one would advocate the prohibition of water because 5000
people annually get drowned; nor the abolition of the railroads because
18,000 are killed and maimed annually.

"Thousands of workingmen lose their lives every year in the coal and
lead mines, but no efforts are made by the prohibitionists to secure
proper ventilation and inspection of the mines or safety appliances for
the railroads. That the State has power to prohibit or abolish the
legalized sale of liquor no intelligent person will deny. The State has
power also to abolish the Church and transform its property into State
property as was recently done in France under the direction of Premier
Clemenceau.

"The action of the French government in this instance, however, did not
reduce the amount of religion in France; on the contrary, it had the
effect of making the lukewarm churchman more active and zealous in the
church's cause.

"Under laws prohibiting the liquor business we find the same results. In
the State of Maine, the oldest prohibition State in the Union, we find
more arrests for drunkenness, in proportion to the population, than in
any State where we have the licensed saloon.

"All Christian nations have for centuries accepted the prohibitory laws
of the ten commandments such as 'Thou Shalt Not Kill,' and yet it is the
same Christian nations that have the largest armies and navies, and that
have been doing nearly all the killing for thousands of years; likewise,
'Thou shalt not steal,' while today the most respected citizens of every
Christian nation in the world are, at the same time, the world's biggest
robbers.

"The power of government is limited when it comes to controlling or
regulating the thought of the individual, nor is it in the province of
government to say when, where, or what, citizens should eat, drink or
wear. The wisest government would promote conditions under which the
people would have plenty to eat, plenty to drink, plenty to wear and
good houses to live in. What he should eat and drink as well as the
amount and kind, or the color of the clothes he should wear, should be
the function of the individual."




Effects of Prohibition


The effect of Prohibition, sumptuary law enacted in government, upon the
political fabric of the government, should claim the serious attention
of American citizens particularly. We can hardly recur to the
consideration of this subject too often.

Prohibition is essentially a repressive measure, and all history shows
that repressive measures, under ordinary conditions, not only fail, but
worse than fail. In aiming to do away with one evil, Prohibitionists set
up a vastly greater one. In our American political life the very worst
political conditions may ensue.

Prohibition laws do not actually prohibit, as every one knows; but they
do bring about a state of affairs, upon whatever scale attempted,
abhorrent to every right-thinking person. As to some of the results,
Professor Hugo Munsterberg, of Harvard University, says:

"Judges know how rapidly the value of the oath sinks in courts where
=violation of the prohibition laws= is a frequent charge, and how habitual
perjury becomes tolerated by respectable people. The city politicians
know still better how closely blackmail and corruption hang together, in
the social psychology, with the enforcement of laws that strike against
the belief and traditions of wider circles. The public service becomes
degraded, the public conscience becomes dulled. And can there be any
doubt that disregard of laws is the most dangerous psychological factor
in our present-day American civilization."

And upon this question of the effectiveness of Prohibitory legislation,
and the effects of such legislation on the moral life of the nation, the
Committee of Fifty on the Physiological Aspects of the Liquor Problem in
its exhaustive report published in 1905, said:

"There has been concurrent evil of prohibitory legislation. The efforts
to enforce it during forty years have had some unlooked-for effects on
public respect for courts, judicial proceedings, oaths and laws in
general, and for officers of the law, legislators and public
servants.... The public has seen law defied, a whole generation of
habitual law-breakers schooled in evasion and shamelessness, courts
ineffective through fluctuations of policy, delays, perjuries,
negligencies and other miscarriages of justice, officers of the law
double-faced and mercenary, legislators timid and insincere, candidates
for office hypocritical and truckling, and office-holders unfaithful to
pledges and public expectation. Through an agitation which has always
had a moral end, =these immoralities have been developed and made
conspicuous=."

Representative Claude U. Stone, of Illinois, in the debate in Congress
over the Hobson resolution for National Prohibition, said:

"There is State-wide prohibition in Maine, and the Webb-Kenyon law
prevents the overriding of that law by other States, and yet there are
cities in Maine that have more shops per capita for the public sale of
liquor than my home city, which is the greatest distilling city in the
world. In parts of Maine candidates for sheriff, who have the enforcing
of the law, =cannot be elected to office if they do not give a public
pledge that they will violate their oath of office and will not enforce
the laws=. The same can be said of Georgia, another prohibition State. It
is for this reason that the people should be permitted to determine by
their own votes the character of restraint that should be placed upon
themselves."

In the same debate in Congress, Representative Julius Kahn, of
California, remarked:

"Mr. Speaker, prohibition is not temperance. Temperance makes for human
progress. It should be invoked in regard to our food, our drink, our
dress, and even our physical exercise. As many people die from
overeating as die from excessive use of alcohol. Excessive physical
exercise has frequently led to heart failure and death. Temperance not
alone in the use of alcohol, but temperance in everything that affects
the human race, is what should be taught in the homes and schools of
this country. Temperance harms no one, on the contrary, it does good.
=Prohibition on the other hand, has generally resulted in making men
liars, sneaks and hypocrites.= If men want liquor, they can invariably
get it, and they can get it even in prohibition States."

The testimony is quite overwhelming: that Prohibition in government
corrupts courts, encourages false oaths, intimidates legislators, causes
public officials to be double-faced and mercenary; makes sneaks, liars
and hypocrites out of men; increases bribery; opens the way for illegal
traffic, and fosters an immoral negligence of law and order! And in
addition to all this, it lessens drunkenness not a whit; but on the
contrary, increases intemperance, making it more possible and perhaps
more inviting to those unable to curb the appetite.

What an indictment is this of prohibition; and being true, it would seem
these well-established and undeniable facts concerning the results of
Prohibition would serve to convince the citizen who is governed by
reason and sound judgment rather than by sentiment and emotion, that
Prohibition in its practical development is =a real menace to the
American system of government=!




Collective Tyranny in Government


Left to impractical theorizing, Prohibition is harmless: allowed to
enter the realm of civil government as a practical working force, it
becomes dangerous, threatening not only one liberty, but all the
liberties of the people. For in the principle of Prohibition lies the
germ of collective tyranny from which may arise every species of
intolerance and despotism--an intolerative principle as far removed from
=the principle of American liberty= as heaven is from hell, and as
different in every essential from the spirit of republican government--a
true democracy--as the breath of the polar iceberg is different from the
blaze of the equatorial sun!

Could the American public see Prohibition =as it is=, and not what it
seems to be:--then this un-American and un-Christian movement would
speedily be relegated to the shades of oblivion, and =real and effective
reform along moral, social and intellectual lines would begin=. As it is,
Prohibition actually stands, like a Chinese Wall, in the pathway of =real
reform=.

Says Professor Munsterberg:

"The evils of drink exist, and to neglect their cure would be criminal;
but to rush on to the conclusion that every vineyard ought, therefore,
to be devastated is unworthy the logic of a self-governing nation."

The evils of gluttony also exist, and that more people die from direct
and indirect causes arising from overeating than from drink will not be
denied, yet who would propose a law to close the butcher shops, and
prohibit the milling of fine flour and the importation of tea and
coffee--higher medical and dietary authorities having decided all these
latter to be injurious--in order to improve the physical condition of
the people!

Compulsory Prohibition, according to Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P., "only
leads to drinking in worse forms than under the old system." Count
Tolstoi, in speaking of the Prohibition movement in America expressed
the belief that "the people in America seem to be tending in a wholly
wrong direction in this matter." Justin McCarthy, M.P., alludes to
Prohibition in the United States as a "gross and ludicrous imposture."
President Andrew D. White refers to the theory and practice as regards
the drink problem as "pernicious." Sir William Treloar, former Lord
Mayor of London, calls these restrictive measures "ridiculous." Bishop
Hall, of Vermont, asserts that "Prohibition drives underground the
mischief which it seeks to cure."

Thousands of good, well-informed citizens of this country, high in
public and social life, many of these leaders in religious sentiment and
thought, are united in the belief that Prohibition begins at the wrong
end of the matter, and they renounce it as not only weak, inefficient
and impractical, but destructive to the American ideals. The art of
self-control, public and scientific education, an understanding of
hygienic and healthful living, proper social and economic development
and surroundings: in these lie the true solution of the problem of
intemperance; and not at all in sumptuary laws and prohibitory
legislation, simply because these latter "put the cart before the
horse," strike at effects and not at causes.




Prohibition Censorship Despotic


Let us not forget the principles for which our great American republic
stands. Recollect, that the tendency toward imperial government and
despotic rule is here today as it has been in every nation and in every
age of the world. Menaces to the rights and privileges of the people are
ever-present: the continued structure of safeguarding laws and
constitutions presuppose the enemy to be ever near:--tyranny may
slumber, but let bigotry and intolerance call ever so softly, and it
springs into active life and being, and on every occasion, with
consummate cunning, justifies its demands with a specious
pretext--censorship for the good of the people.

Prohibition censorship is one of these specious pretexts; but censorship
invariably arrogates to itself the prerogatives of monarchy and the
exactions of martial law. Government of an Emperor is as well as
government by unreasoning, tyrannous =majority=. In government, middle
ground is rarely found, and if it is, it is only for a temporary period
and for reasons of expediency: it; is a question of republic or empire,
freedom or slavery, liberty or despotism, the life or death of the
people! Censorship by =the majority=--as to what the individual shall eat,
or drink, or wear, or religiously or irreligiously do or observe--is as
hateful to the genuine American citizen as would be the censorship of =a
Czar=! Censorship is dictatorial and despotic: it overrides American law
and American ideals; it is the rule of =a suzerainty= in place of
=fundamental government=: it claims to be acting =under= government, but
it is actually acting =above= government. Censorship is not =freedom=; the
very word itself precludes the view: censorship is =slavery=, intensified
or modified; it is the same thing whether it be under American rulers or
the Great Khan of Tartary. Prohibition censorship is only the =beginning=:
it is not the end. Beneath it all, lie the claws of the tiger--the claws
of fanatical bigotry and misrule--and ultimately, if not checked, the
whole American people =will feel those claws=. =But then: IT WOULD BE TOO
LATE!=

Long ago John Quincy Adams sounded a timely warning. He said:

"Forget not, I pray you, the right of personal freedom: =self-government
is the foundation of all our political and social institutions=. Seek not
to enforce upon your brother =by legislative enactment= the virtue that he
can possess =only= by the =dictates of his own= conscience =and the energy
of his will=."

In conclusion: John Stuart Mill is right, when he says Prohibition is
"so monstrous a principle" as to be "far more dangerous than any single
interference with liberty"; a principle that there is "=no violation of
liberty which it would not justify=."

All religious despotism commences by combination and influence, and as
well-said by Col. Richard M. Johnson in his memorable U. S. Senate
Report of 1829, "when that influence begins to operate upon the
political institutions of a country the civil power soon bends under it;
and the catastrophe of other nations furnishes an awful warning of the
consequence."

Will the people of this great nation listen to the siren voice of this
modern destroyer of personal freedom, and cutting loose from ancient
moorings, turn back to the hateful paths of despotism? Will the republic
deny the sacred principles of religious and personal liberty, whose
first purchase-price was the blood of the minutemen of Lexington? Or,
like a political rock of Gibraltar, stand fast upon the fundamental
principles of its being, continuing to safeguard and maintain the
constitutional guaranties of all its citizens?

It is the American people that must answer these momentous questions!
And answer them they will! There is no escape from the responsibility!
=The future of the Republic rests upon their decision!=

It is the bounden duty of every American freeman, to speak against, to
write against, to vote against =the menace of Prohibition=!

=PROHIBITION IS A MENACE TO=

     =THE PROSPERITY OF THE COMMUNITY.=

     =THE PEACE AND TRANQUILLITY OF THE PEOPLE.=

     =THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES OF THE CITIZENS.=

     =THE POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS OF THE LAND.=

     =THE STABILITY OF THE REPUBLIC.=

=A vote against Prohibition is a vote against THESE MENACES!=




+The Menace of Prohibition+

Should be widely circulated by every advocate and champion of Personal
Liberty and Constitutional Rights

Right at this time--in the crisis of American Liberty!

There is nothing just like it

The arguments are not of the +stereotyped+ class

The facts given are indisputable

It does not offend +the man on the other side of the question+

It appeals to the citizen who desires fair play--and wants to see the
American Republic continue a free nation, safeguarding the interests of
+ALL+ and granting "special privileges to none"

REMEMBER ALWAYS--

"Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty"

SINGLE COPIES, 10 CENTS EACH

BY MAIL, POSTPAID

Special rates on large quantities--100, 500 and 1000 lots--will be given
upon application

Address the Author--

Mrs. LULU WIGHTMAN

314 West First St., Los Angeles, Cal.




Footnote:

[1] Inter-church Conference was the beginning of the National Federation
of the Churches, which maintains a Prohibition department and is
committed to the programme of Prohibition.




Transcriber's Notes:

Passages in italics are indicated by _italics_.

Passages in bold are indicated by =bold=.

Underlined passages are indicated by +underline+.

Punctuation has been fixed without note.






End of Project Gutenberg's The Menace of Prohibition, by Lulu Wightman

*** 