Part 1

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.

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."