  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 “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 “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. 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 |
|
