Ought Prohibition To Be Made A Political Question? If So, With What Limitations?

Krom the Homlletic Review. The Importation, manufacturo, nml sal of inioxit'iitiiig liquorg, wheu considi'red cummerciiilly, supply the demmid craated by thrlr consumpllon; and tlirough ihis consumption, and nnt otherwiae. the well known evils resulting from the llquur business inikc their appearance. These evils arise only when the consumption is that of h common beverajre, freqnently repeated, by tlie sume persons, in considerable qtiantitle?, and tbr a considerable peflod, so as to fnrm the habit of sucli use. Not every une of thene liqimra, as a beverajte, comes wtthin tliis desa iption. Sume people use tliem so moderately I tiat. f Kuch wure the practice of all liquor drinker, there would be no occasion for any special legislation on the subject. It is not true that all such drinkers are drunkards, or that they in the end become such ; and yet it is true that, in respect to large numbers of persons, liquor drinklnjj bt-conies a confirmed and most injurious habit, and that trom this source iirise evils of awful dinieuslons. It is this fact, and this only, that creates the neceesily for remedial restraint, wiih a view to leseen or wholly remove these evils. The history of legislation in this country ehowg that, for the purpose of guch restraint, special laws have, froni time to time, been enacted by most if not all of the States of the union, and that these laws were atended to beatax upon the liquor business, generally imponed in the torm of n license fee. All such laws have assumed the right of these states to regúlate and control the action ot the iuhauitauts thereor, to any extent demanded by the public good subject to the lltnitation of certain inalienable rifrhts beloniring to individual persons, of which tho riglit to manufacture and sell intoxicating liquors is not one, and subject to the furtlier limitation of vested rijrhts of property, of whicb no one can be deprived "without due proeess of law." (Baitemeyer vs. lowa, 18 Wall. 129.) ProbiblUon, cousidered as au applica tion of this le_r:il principie, declares that there shall be no manufacture or sale of iutoxicating liquors, except under circumstanees and for purposes carefully specitied. The design is to keep these liquors out of the general market, and to stop their con-minption as a beverage by cutting off the suddIv. Wlit u ¦uiiMi ihe ncclise System excludes the sale of intoxi cating liquorr, except by designated persons wlio, in diatiuction from the creat uiass of the people, are permitted to pursue the business under the regulations and restrietions of law. The two systems do not dill'cr in kind, or in the evil had in view, but only in the degree of their resti k-tion. Both are meant to be remedial, and leal restraint is alike the object ot both. Theoretlcally considered, prohibition is the high-water mark of the idea. But if it is not practicable in a given state, and the iicense system is praticable, then the latter, though lesa reítrictive than the former, is, in such a state of facts, practically the better system, certainly better Citan no restraint by law. Those wbo denounce every form of the license system, and will have prohibition or nothing, make a grave mistake. What they denounce is much better than nothing. since it lm poses some restraint upon the liquitr business, and makes the evils less than they otherwise would be. Let us concede to prohibition all that its most enthusiastic friends claim for it, and tliat itshould be established by law when and where this can be done ; and a very important question then arlses, not as to the end to be sought, but as to the way of seeking it. Sh.ill a distinct and separate political party be organized in the seveml states, and also in the nation, and ."hall distiuct and separate candidates be nominated by that party for national and state offlees, on the basis of prohibition as the leading if not the exclusive issue to be subinitted to the votes ot the people, certainly as the controlling reason for the eiigtence of such a party? Sorac prohibiiionists answer this in tlie afrlrmative. And, in order to judge a to the wisdom of tuig answer, it ruay be Well in the outset lo note the following f;:cts: 1 That this country has never had at the same time more than two great polilical par ties, either in the nation or in the m'tithI states, and that these parties, either with or without change of their respective tille", have perpetuated themselves down to the present time. 2. That the great mass of the voters have uniformly been divided between these two parties. 8. Tuut, for a rule, the party that bas cntrolled the general government has also control led the majority of the state goveruments, anil that in this respect nallonal and state politics have been identified. 4. That comparatively small political p.irtiett have, neverthi'less, appearud from time to time, in opposition to one or the other or both of the great partie-, without diuplacing either, and without obtuining control ni the aff drs of government, and that these parties have not lived louger in some cases than a single election, and that, whatever has been their duration, they have in the end disappeared altogethur, being swallowed up and lust in oue or both of the two great political parties of the country. The task of creating an absolutely new party that will, in the presence of the pailies alrendy existiug, perpetúate itself and obtaiu coutrol of the government, or, to any considerable extent, of the state governments., is not, in the light of these facts, so i"t-y as some people imagine. Il has never succeeded, even once, in the whole history cf this government. The republic.iD party of to-day is not an ex ampie of such creation. This pai ty, formully orgauized ín 1858, was not a new parly contending for the mastery against two other parties in the Held, and llnally conquering both, but was simplv the old Whi party under a new name, with elements of strength derived from the liberty party and also the democratie party, while some of the whig elementa, especially in the southern states, went into the latter party. The whig party gave place to the republican party and was inerged into t, and, with added elemeuts, took u new name. Such are the (acts in the case. One in ed not look far to aee why it is so difticult to créate and perpetúate an absolutely new political party, and place it in power. There is practically no room for it, and no general deinand for It. The ideas of the few, as compared with those of the mauy, make no such demaud. The majority of the people can always get all they want, through one or the other of the exiiiing parties, by simply voting it Into power. These parties are constantly watrhiug public sentiment, and, from time to time, adoptlng new principies or measures in aecordauce with its gupposed demanda. Their plan U not to ltg bind thia sentiment or go contrary to it; and neitlier pro poses to di9band or comuik suicide, in order to make room tor a tliird party. It is the constant study of both to keep on good terms witli the majority of the voters; and the people can always pet all the leglslation they want through either of theni. Huw then isa tlnrd party, asa distinct and separate orgatiization, to erowd itself into power, in the presence of the two great parties tliat already have tlie field, either of which stands ready to respond 10 the deiniiiul oL public sentiment, and both of which are sceking to interpret these demands? This U aquestion which tbose who are so ready to extemporize new political parties, simply to suit llieir iileas, are uot Hpt thoughtfully to coniiler. Tliey practically forget that the tiiHJority of the people, spi-aking throuh the bullot box, rulo in this country, and ihat this uiajority has no occasion tor a third party, and will not use it. Two paitiesare enough for all practical purposes, and a third party II just one too niany. The prospecta of prohibition, by the agency.of a Iblrd poütical party organized for this special purpose, do not, in the light of these general faets, appear vcry piomising. Such a party can give no legal expression to its views uutil it fret itself into power, and this itcannot do until ii mnjoiity of the voters shall adopt its views; and when, if ever.tiiis bocomes a fact, the party will be wholly unincessary to attain the result. Let public sentiment move up to the mark of prohibition, so as to give signs tlmt this sor is soon to be the choice aud purpose of the people; and there will be no dlfflculty in realizing the end through au existing party, without any new organizatlon. What is wantod is not i new party, but a prevalent, popular opinión in favor of prohibition; and ti 11 this is gained, political prohibición is fowerless to attam the end. It may, however, be aaid that a third party, tbougli for the present powetless, 8, nevertheless, the shortest and surest way to créate the necessary popular opinión in favor of prohibition. I do not regard this as a correct view, but, on the coutrary, believe that prohibitionists will éOOiier and more certainly gain their end by Identifylng themselves with the political party that, by reason of its character and constituent elementa, is most like.ly to sympathize wlth their views, and trom whie.h, by coftperating wilh it and helping to place it in power, they can most hopefully expect the necessary legislation 00 this subject. Let them 'i withii the lineo ur buuIi a pariy and makt; themselves part and parecí of it ; let them particípate in its uominating conventlons and support the candidates thereof ; let them attend its primary meetings; let them seek to edúcate it up to tlie standard of their ideas; let them agitate the question of prohibition as inuch a9 they please; let them do their utmost to enlighten the popular mind as to the merits of their cause; and if by thug acting with and wlth In such a party, they can convert neither the party nor public sentiment to the adoption of their views, how caw they hope to succeed by setting up a third paity? Stinding up to be counted, as a comparatively small minority, will not give them prohibition, or increase their power to obtain It, or add to the force of their argument, or change public opinión in their favor. The effect will rather be to disclose their own weiikness and the hopelessness of their task by this mode of action. But may not prohibitionists, though gaining no victory for themselves, nevertheless, by tiking a course that defeatsan existlnsf party, so discipline and punlili that party by its defeat as to comoel its acceptance of their views, as the only condition upn which it can have their support? The party to which such an argument is addressed, will always answer this qupstion in the negative whenever compliance with the condition named will bring to it greater loss than gains. No party will ever seek the votes Of prohibition upon a condition that, in its judgment, involves the loss of a larger uumber of votes. Every party will take the hazard of being defeated by the former, rather than that of being defeated by the latter. The argument in terrorem, however plausible it may seem to prohibitionists, will not work, unless they are so suraerous that they can by thelr own strensrlh make thïir cause victoiious; and f this be the fact, then they do not need to use the argument at all, since one or both of the exisling parties will, without the argument, be certain to adjust their action to the fact. There is no difflculty about the success of prohibition, without a third party, whenever and wherever such a fact exists. What then shall be done when both of the great parties are equally opposed to prohibition and equally refuse to adopt it? This questiou viitually concedes that the predominant sentiment of the people is against prohibition. If this were not the faet, the attitude of the existing parties would uot be against it. The organi.ation of a third party on the basis of prohibition s not, so long as this fact remaius, going to turn a powerless minoritv into a succiissful majority. The candidates of such a party will not be elected ; and prohibitionists will not thereby acquire any additional power more sfongly to influence the public mind than they might otherwise have done. They will not be able to preach any better, or reason any better, or better do anytliing lo change the thoughts of the people, aud make their case triumphant. They cannot vote themselves into power until they get the necessary popular opinión on their side ; and there is nothIng in the mere organization of a third party to secure this result. The opinión being given, guch a party is not needed ; and, without it, the party would be political ly poweriess. The wise course for prohibitionists, in the case supposed, is to accept the situation as it is, and then, by earnest afforts, seek to arouse public attention to the enormous evils connected with the liquor business, and to the urgent necessity of stringent lcgislation to abate these evils. Here is an ampie tield for the exercise of their best powers in the way of argument and persuasión; and if they are successful in leading the people generally to adopt their views, the end they desire will e gained without organizing a third party for that purpose. The existing political parties, aUumed to be opposed to prohibition, will, upon this supposition, Ctunge their attitude; and either, if placed in power, will give to the principie tlio sanction and force of law. No new party Is needed when public sentiment demands a pro hibltory law, and, in tlie absence of such a sentimeut, no new party can secure the result. (To be eoncluded next week.)