SENTINEL LIBRARY.
Published monthly by Paolfie Proas Publishing Co.
Terms, 50 cents per Year. Entered at the Post Office in Oakland.
No 49.	Oakland, Cal December, 1891.	Price, 1 Cent.
THE PROHIBITION PARTY
—AND—
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.
Legal Prohibition Civil and not a religious Matter.
By C. P. BOLLMAN.
That the regulation, and even the entire prohibition of the traffic in intoxicating liquors, to be used as beverages, is properly a civil matter, coming fully within the sphere of human government, must be admitted by everyone who has studied the question from the standpoint of an unprejudiced observer. The basely interested, who are willing to enrich themselves by ministering to the most depraved appetites of their fellow-men, may deny this, but none others will.
The traffic in intoxicating liquors entails upon the State enormous expenditures for the apprehension, trial, and imprisonment of criminals, and for the care of paupers and insane. Crime, pauperism, and insanity are the legitimate and inevitable fruits of the liquor traffic, and civil justice demands that the State prohibit it. True, it is objected that prohibition infringes personal liberty, but this cry comes not from men who desire to drink, and are fearful of being deprived of that privilege, but from those who seek to enrich themselves by'means of the traffic regardless of its consequences to their fellow-men.
2
THE PROHIBITION PARTY AND
Prohibition does not say that the individual shall not drink intoxicating liquors, even as health regulations do not say that he shall not eat adulterated foods or unwholesome meat; but it does forbid men to traffic in such beverages, just as sanitary laws forbid the sale of diseased meat and other unwholesome and injurious foods. Pro hibition deals with the traffic, not with the individual.
Again, it is objected that prohibition is impracticable. Under existing conditions this may be true, but that does not affect the principle. If the saloon is a menace to the peace and safety of society, if it makes criminals and paupers, thus increasing the burdens of taxation, if it endangers life and destroys property (and that it does all this will scarcely be denied), the State may properly prohibit it.	£ .
But this is not the standpoint from which prohibition is advocated by the great majority of those who are in favor of it. Very unfortunately, it is made a religious question. It is proposed to prohibit the liquor traffic not as a menace to civil society, but as sin against God. This is a most serious mistake. It is a mistake, however, to which the Prohibition party is fully committed. The convention that nominated John P. St. John in 1884 set forth this:—
“The Prohibition party in national convention assembled, acknowledged Almighty God as the rightful sovereign of all men, from whom the just powers of government are derived, and to whose laws all human enactments should conform as an absolute condition of peace, prosperity, and happiness. [Here follows an arraignment of the national and State laws maintaining the liquor traffic,] We therefore call upon our fellow-citizens to aid in the repeal of these laws and the suppression of this baneful liquor traffic.”
The national Prohibition platform of 1888 was substantially the same, while with scarcely an exception the State Prohibition platforms have followed the lead of the national platform in this particular. This is well illustrated by the following resolutions, which, among others,
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.
3
were adopted by the Prohibitionists of St. Lawrence County, N. Y., in their convention at Ogdensburg in 1891:—
Resolved, (1) That the question of how to deal with the rum traffic is the problem of the age, and that its solution is the work upon the hands of the Prohibition party under God.
Resolved, (6) That the interests of our nation demand a faithful observance of the holy sabbath and the enforcement of law touching the same, for the sake of the home and public safety.
In the name of God, and home, and native land.
This is in different form, but in perfect keeping with the national platform; and in this assumption of a divine commission to abolish the liquor traffic lurks a very grave danger. Necessarily, when men or parties assume to act for God, they assume also to interpret the will of God; and in this the Prohibition party is no exception. That this is true is evidenced by the following criticism passed by the Lever, a Prohibition paper of Chicago, upon the Voice, of New York, the national Prohibition party organ:—
“The Lever believes that great harm may come to the cause of prohibition by the intolerant attitude of some of its most devout friends, who will not brook the contrary opinion of other men or give excuse. The New York Voice has of late [latter part of 1891] spoken out against the church as in league with the saloon, and from all quarters have come the praises of well-meaning men. Urged on by such radicalism, this authority sets itself up as a high pope, infallible in judgment, unerring in reason, and excommunicates the whole body of 4,000,000 church voters who do not vote as it dictates.
“The Prohibition party has nothing whatever to do with the church. Let the church purge itself. The Prohibition party is not the church. It is time men see these things. There is wickedness in the Prohibition party, there have been wrong; actions, and yet no one makes a stronger protest than Prohibitionists when some church or minister attacks our party. . . . The party was not organized for reforming the individual, but to correct the abuses of the State. If moral betterment comes with it, that is but a result. Too long already has the Prohibi-
4
THE PROHIBITION PARTY AND
tion party gone on the line that its mission was reformation of the individual. .	. .
“The party is organized to control government, to fill the offices for the purpose of carrying out certain acts necessary to make what it believes to be the best government. The party in power is the government. In this country Church and State have been declared forever divided. If the party in power is to prescribe the duty of the church, then is the State acting for the church, and the church is under authority. The Prohibition party has no right to say what shall constitute the religious belief of any church. The moment it does that it sets itself up as a religious hierarchy. If the Methodist Church says to license is sin, let the church attend to its own sinners. The Prohibition party is not here to punish sinners or lay down a rule of morals. The worst sinner in the United States, if he works and votes for the Prohibition party, is just as good a Prohibitionist as the saintliest bishop in any church who votes the same ticket. . . . The welfare of the citizen in the future world is not the concern of the Prohibition party organization. .	.	.
“A political party does not offer spiritual advice; it does not pretend to even favor the Christian religion. A Jew is just as welcome as the Christian; a pagan or an atheist should be also. Even the drunkard, if he votes the Prohibition party ticket, is a Prohibitionist, and is welcome.
“The church is organized for one purpose, a political party for another. It is not the object of the church to govern in civil affairs; it is not the object of the party to govern in religious affairs.”
This is sober sense. If the principles here expressed had been understood and acted upon from the beginning, the liquor question would be in a fair way to be settled to-day; but these principles have neither been understood nor acted upon by the Prohibition party, as such; for while the Lever states the principles that should govern the party, the Voice is the exponent of the principles that do govern it, and that have governed it from its organization to the present time. Assuming to prohibit the liquor traffic because it is sin against God, it could not, in the very nature of things, stop short of assuming to define sin, and so become, as the Lever says, ;‘a religious hierarchy. ’ ’
It is this assumption that leads the Prohibition party
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.
5
to demand Sunday legislation, as is done in the tenth plank of their platform adopted in 1888. And in this they are perfectly consistent, for, assuming that it is their mission to prohibit sin, and holding disregard, of Sunday to be sin, they naturally seek to prohibit it. And this is directly in line with the National Reformers, whose scheme of government is thus explained (April 10 and 17, 1890) by Rev. N. R. Johnston, of the National Reform Association, in the Christian Statesman, the organ of the association
“All civil governments and all officers should take the Bible as the higher law and as the rule of action. Indeed, this holy law is just as good a rule of action in the State as in the church, or in personal relations. According to the whole moral law as summed up in the ten commandments, and the whole moral Mosaic penal code, would be the rule of action in Congress, in State Legislatures, and in the courts of justice. Kidnapping, man stealing, blasphemy, and adultery, as well as murder, would be punished by severe penalties. Not the ever-changing will of the people, but the unchangeable law of the Most High, would be of supreme authority. As this would be right, can we doubt that good would result?”
This Mr. Johnston tells us “would tend powerfully to the suppression of existing evil—of all abounding wickedness. Public idol worship, profanity, blasphemy, Sabbath desecration, disregard of parental authority, oppression of the poor, and of the millions once enslaved, shameful wrongs done to women, the licensed liquor traffic, intemperance, legalized prostitution, infamous divorce systems, polygamy, bloodshed, adultery—these and similar evils would be punished as the divine law requires.” This is the National Reform conclusion, and, starting with the assumption that human government should enforce divine law, it is not a surprising one. Indeed, to be consistent every man who demands prohibition because the liquor traffic is sin, must, with avowed National Reformers, demand the enforcement of the whole of the moral law as summed up in the ten commandments; in short, every logically consistent Pro-
6
THE PROHIBITION PARTY AND
hibitionist is, whether he knows it or not, committed already to the National Reform scheme. And this not because proper prohibition is a religious question, but because the Prohibition party approach the subject from a wrong standpoint.
The whole Prohibition movement, as at present constituted, seems to be instinct with National Reform thought and motives. The basic declaration of National Reform is that—
“Almighty God is the source of all power and authority in civil government, that the Lord Jesus Christ is the ruler of nations, and that the revealed will of God is of supreme authority in civil affairs/’
As already stated, the first declaration of the convention that nominated John P. St.John in 1884, set forth this:—
“The Prohibition party, in National Convention assembled, acknowledge Almighty God as the rightful Sovereign of all men, from whom the just powers of government are derived, and to whose laws human enactments should conform as an absolute condition of peace, prosperity, and happiness.”
This was the attitude of the Prohibition party in 1884, and, as we have seen, it is its attitude still; and it is a most dangerous one.
It is true in one sense that the just powers ot government are derived from God, and from God alone; but it is not true in the sense in which National Reformers and Prohibitionists intend. By creating man a social being, by placing him in this world, and suffering him to continue in it after sin entered, God made civil government a necessity, and so ordained it, ordained that men should govern themselves in communities; but that God now gives special men or parties authority to rule in his name, that he gives any government or party any divine right, independently of the people, that is, of the governed, is a dangerous, unscriptural, and un-American doctrine. It is, however, the doctrine of both National Reformers
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE.
7
and Prohibitionists. Both claim that they are destined under God to effect that for which they are striving; and both assume to act 4‘in the name of,” that is, by the authority of, God,—God is the Sovereign, and they are his ministers to execute the divine will.
God is the rightful moral sovereign of all, and all human acts should conform to his law; but to declare that all “human enactments” should conform to the divine law is simply to declare that human governments are the proper interpreters of that law; and not only that they should interpret it, but that they should enforce it as well.
To some it may seem inconsistent to say that all human acts should conform to the divine law, and at the same time to deny that human enactments should conform to the same standard. But the inconsistency is only seeming. God has made every man morally responsible to him alone; any interference on the part of human lawmakers tends to destroy this responsibility, as also to take away that freedom of action that is necessary in the development of character. Men may, and in truth have, honestly sought to do God service by endeavoring to model their laws after his law; but this is contrary to the divine plan.
God has reserved moral government to himself, but has left men free to govern themselves in civil affairs; and this for obvious reasons. Had God commissioned men to administer his law, and to require of their fellows the discharge of duties due to the Divine Being, it would have destroyed responsibility to God, and have put man in the place of God. On the other hand, had God not committed to men the power to regulate^to some extent their relations with each other, to enforce and preserve their own rights, one of two things would have followed: either punishment would have been so long delayed as to afford no protection to those in need of it, or else vengeance would have been so swift and certain as to defeat
8
THE PROHIBITION PAR l V.
the very design of God in making man a free moral agent
All human government is force, and party platforms are simply declarations of the principles which will be crystallized into law, and so enforced upon all by the party, in the event of its success. Therefore for a party to say that “all human enactments” should conform to the divine law is for it to declare that should it come into power it would adopt legislation requiring everything that the divine law requires and forbidding everything that the divine law forbids; in other words, to pledge itself to administer the divine law.
The just powers of government are necessarily limited to securing impartially to all the free exercise of natural rights, to the securing of civil order; and it was for this purpose that civil government was ordained. Whatever is less than this falls short of what government may do, and of what it should do;'and whatever is more than this exceeds the just powers of government and restricts natural rights.
As has been shown, the National Reform Association and .the Prohibition party both hold that the government should recognize the law of God “as of supreme authority in civil affairs;” and it involves them both in the same difficulty, namely, in the assumption that they are commissioned to interpret and enforce the law of God, to prohibit sin, and to promote righteousness. This leads them alike to decide, not only for themselves but for others, what sin is and what righteousness is, and to seek to mete out rewards and punishments as they judge right. In short, they assume prerogatives which belong only to God. * And this is the reason that no man who has a just appreciation of freedom of conscience, and who is willing that his neighbor should’enjoy the perfect religious liberty sought to be guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution of the United States, can affiliate with the Prohibition party.