Page 107

67
[newpaper article]
THE PROHIBITION CONTEST
The Broad Views of a Sincere Prohibitionist -
Action of Mercersburg Ministerial Association, &c
Mr. Editor: - I feel like writing a few lines,
with your permission, on what I conceive to
be some of the follies of the Prohibitionists, or
rather, of the follies of some of the Prohibitions.
I am heartily in favor of any an all
practical though am not over sanguine on this
question of prohibition, but would rejoice to
see it carried by a large majority. But I fear
if it is killed it will be slaughtered in the house
of its friends.

This quetion has been referred by our State
Legislature to the people for their consideration
and decision of the polls, but no sooner is
the contest opened than up springs the bulldozer
into the arena, clad in the armor of proscription
and intolerance, and at once essays to assume
command, and any one who may entertain
doubt of the wisdom of this measure ot
dares to express it he is at once denounced as
a friend of liquor, an aider and abettor of
drunkard makers and murderers, and in unholy
alliance with the saloons.

Mr. Editor, we want votes. Is this a good
way to get them?

Again, many of our leaders embrace every
opportunity to pitch into and cry down the
Brook's law. Is this wise? That law was carried
through by the efforts of good men against
the whole power of the saloon element. It is
the best law on the subject we have ever had,
and has done much good. Prohibition may do
better, but should we all fail to get prohibition
what have we to fall back on but the Brook's
law? Is it the part of wisdom to
it odious and unpopular and thus impair its
efficiency? Will this procure us any votes?
It seems to me like folly. votes are what we
want.

Again, some of our friends take special delight
in proclaiming in advance that "if prohibition
fails, this fight will just have commenced."
"We were all clamorous for submission
but if we lose we won't submit," Headswe win;
tails you lose. One committee in Philadelphia
say that if prohibition loses, they will
teach the old parties that they must bow to the
will of people. Pray, Mr. Editor, who are
the people? Does not this point clearly to a
third party, and could they raise any point better
calculated to lose us votes? What we want
is votes.

Once more - and this may be a great piece of
temerity on my part. But to me it seems a
a great mistake to attempt to make this a question
of the church, and I think the effort to do
so partakes neither of the "wisdon of the serpent
or the harmlessness of the dove." I think this
is already made probable by the unseemly attitude
in which many of the clergymen are
placing themselves before the public, and their
using terms and language towards each other
which, if not discreditable and derogatory, are
at leat neither elevating or magnifying are
at least neither elevating or magnifying to
their high calling. Why, Mr. Editor, from the
way ome men write and talk one might think
this matter had been referred to the churches,
whereas it has been referred to Jew and Gentile,
Catholic and Protestant, Christian and Infidel,
Drunkars and Temperance men - to be
decided at the polls. And those who attempt
to make it a scriptural question are as far
wrong (in my judgement- as is the Revl Cort,
when he tries to make it unscriptural. it seems
to me, Mr. Editor, that on this question some
men would "rush on grounds that angels might
fear to tread on."

This is not a quesiton of theology, or of christianity,
or of religion, or of the church, or of
the Bible. And might not the attempt to make
ir so be in disguise, a wile of the evil one to
lure the clergy on to untenable ground, and
then when they are beaten, heap odium and
contumely upon them. Mr. Editor, I think I
have a high regard for the clergy as a class,
and all due reverence for their high and holy
calling as ministers of the everlasting Gospel.
But while I concede their right as citizens and
voters to take part in outside questions at the
polls, and that it is often their duty to do so,
yet I dispute their right as preachers and pastors
to drag their clerical and sacerdotal robes
down along with them. let them so go down
if they see fit, but let them go down and meet
such questions as man meets man.

This, Mr. Editor, is a question of the civil
government - a question of State policy. It is
essentially a politica l question (although not
now a party one), and their fibre of our institutions
and into the sentiments of the people
than oppostition to anything that smacks of a
union of Dhurch and State. Mr. Editor, we
want votes.
A FRIEND OF TEMPERANCE.