Bishop Merrill's Ideas

Ju i recent letter of the afcle Bishop to fúe Western Chnstian Advocate in replj o lr. Leonard, an Ohio Prohibitionlst, rhohad put hitu iu a false light, he says: Practical men oflen aak : "ir prohlbitlon aiinotbe had, then what Is the best thiog bat can be had?" Is tbi wrong? Does Dr. jftonard never do the same ? I saw a surly loyoncego to hls motlu-r and ask, in Imperlus tone, for a piece of bread and butter, rith silgaron it. The mothergare hlm the read and butter without the sugar. The 111le fellow scowled, and lndignantly Ihrew he hrnad and butter out of doors. There are few prohibitionlsts wuo exhlbit lhe;wlslom and spirit of the surly boy, but .their lumber Is not large nor their iDfluence great' I did argue that the state has the rlgbt to Lax the trafflc- that to do lt ts a rlgbteous thlng, If the trafflc exlsts at all- tViat lt Is "squeamlshness" to reject money that comes tot he treasury as taxes on thlsnefarlous business. To this lt is replied that we nilght as well tux murder or prostitutlon. The reply s ftillaclous. The Uquor trafflc Is a business abad and wlcked business, it Is true ; but it is a business wlth large capital irivolved, as raurder Is not. To tax the capital is the rlght of the state, whlle to regard the laxlng as a remedy is sheèr folly. "Blood mouey!" saya oue. Let us see. Here is a man who goes to the saloon and buys whisky, gets drunk,gocs home, beats hls wlfeand frlghtens hls chlldren. He Is arrested and flned, and pays his line. wlth money whlch hls abused wlfe and children need. and tbat inoney goes lnto the treasury, and no one cries "blood money." If the state, though wickedly refusing lo close the saloon. Iraposes a burden on lt In the form of taxes, does lt thereby add to the wrong? Does the collection of the taxes lncrease the responslblllty of the state? Is the saloon worse bocause of the laxes Iban without? Hut ray argument was not so muoh tojuntlfy the lmposltlon of the taxes, as to show the rlght of the Blate to control, and therefore to restrlct, burden, and destroy the trafflc. Ia the articlefrom whlch the doctor selects detached seulences, I said, choose prohlbltion nrst, last, all the time; and then I named the order In whlch minor restricttons mlght be accepted In the absence of the posslblllty of prohlbltion, and sald : "Take the best you can get, tlll you can get the best." Ilard puslu'd,. Indeed, Is he wbo tries tomakethis posltlon odlous, or because of lt seeks to justlfy hlmself In wrongfully representlng me as "favoring," "defendlng," and seeklng to "Justlfy" Ucense and taxing, as "remedies" for the evils of the trafflc, after I had reJected all these remedies as "fallures." And now comes our friend of the Argus with the assertion that the tariff prevents exportation and therefore lowers the price of wheat! Quite an astonisher! In this city our ordinances IrapOM a tarill' upon people who come licre to peddle their goods froni house to house. On the saine principie this local tariff, or license as we term it, prevenís our inerchants f rom selling their wares to outside partios, and therefore lowers the price of their commodities ! That is a fair illustiation of the practical worklng of the fret' trade theory. The theory of free traders has leen heretofore that the sweeping away of the tariff would cheapen everything. N'ow the Argus claims, by inference, that It woultl raise tlis price of vvheat, at least. Of course free trade would cheapen labor, for it stands to reason that our workmen cannot compete with foreign countiies without a tariff to aid them. 80 if it would increase the price of wheat and decrease the price of labor, it would only make it so much more diftlcult for the great mass of tlie laborers to provide that necessity of life- bread- for tbemselfea and families. The tariff has proved itself the American laborer's friend, it nieans America for Americans. Free trade means America for Europeans, Asiática, - all the world, in tact. Which is preferable ?