CHAPTER I
.
PRELIMINARY VIEW OF THE SUBJECT.
As extremes do and must perforce exist, the noblest philosophy of life is _compromise_.
Temperance then is the truest medium between total abstinence and excess, and in the same manner, beer occupies the medium position between ardent spirits and water. This fact is of the greatest importance, and until the public thoroughly understands the differences, whether from a moral, social, economic, or sanitary point of view, between distilled and fermented liquors, or in other words, beer and whisky there can be no hope of proper legislation as to the traffic in these articles. This legislation is now greatly influenced by the public advocates of total abstinence, among whom, if their own repeated claims be taken into account we might expect to find only disinterested, high-minded philanthropists. But it is notorious that their ranks are largely swelled by ignorant, ambitious or foolish men, whose vanity or pecuniary interest determines their action, and whose persistence and numerical strength will constitute an effective power until legislative bodies and the people at large are more thoroughly informed as to the actual experience of countries in which the problem has been dispassionately studied and brought to a successful solution. In too many of our states the liquor laws represent the triumph of ignorance and prejudice over reason and the welfare of the community. We hold that the solution of the temperance question is to be found through fermented liquors, and “BEER AGAINST WHISKY” is our motto.
Before coming, as we shall do later in this book, to a detailed examination of the facts in regard to the use of beer, it may be well to declare briefly our position, and give some indication of the kind of testimony that will be more fully displayed under a separate heading.
We hold that the production and sale of beer is so far from being subversive of public morals, that experience in all countries where beer is the national beverage, demonstrates precisely the opposite of this position. We hold too, that the use of beer is not merely indifferent, but, within the limits of temperance (_i. e._ moderation), a good and rational means of developing the mental and bodily powers of man.
We cannot join in the gratulations of those who now—as they say—so enthusiastically enjoy the blessings of total abstinence. During the last thirty years we have seen something of the operation of this enthusiasm, not only in Great Britain, but in the native state of the originator of the movement in this country, and we find it impossible to assent to the famous proposition that a pledged abstainer is a drunkard saved. We have been convinced that a pledged abstainer is too often a man who drinks in secret and thus adds hypocrisy to his other sins.
Notice this passage from evidence given before a state committee appointed to inquire into the action of the restrictive laws. The Hon. James H. Duncan of Haverhill, says:
“My observation and convictions are, that temperance has not been promoted by the prohibitory law; that the temperance of our people is not so good now as before the passage of the law; it has no efficacy in checking intemperance and the evils that result from it; it has been productive of more mischief than good, and I think it an unwise act. It is impossible to make that a crime which is not made a crime by the divine law, and the use of beer, wine and cider cannot by any effort be made a crime _per se_, yet the prohibitory statute makes it a crime to sell either, and worse, it is a crime for a carrier to carry them. No wonder that such a law demoralizes the community, for a vast amount of lying and fraud have been called into existence through its agency.”
The Rev. George Putnam, D.D., said; “I believe and know that the prohibitory law produces demoralization, and disrespect for a law that cannot be enforced. It demoralizes jurors and witnesses. It demoralizes the buyers and sellers of liquors, inducing them to resort to all manner of frauds, tricks and evasions to do that unlawfully which they cannot do lawfully. It is injurious to the conscience of the people to be always violating this law; and so far as liquor selling is concerned the law has done no good.”
These extracts and many others to be given later, go to prove that it is most unwise to interfere with the social habits of a people, that it is dangerous for a state to do so, and that, as a matter of fact, temperance is not promoted by a prohibitory law. Public testimony that such laws are a blunder, or worse, has been given by such men as John Quincy Adams, Professor Agassiz of Cambridge, Rev. Leonard Bacon, D. D., of Connecticut, Professor Bigelow of Boston, Professor Edward Clark of Boston, ex-Governor Clifford, the late Right Rev. M. Eastburn, D. D., the late Governor Andrews, and Oliver Wendell Holmes, all of Boston, ex-Governor Washburn of Massachusetts, Professor Bowen of Cambridge, General Burrell of Roxbury, Hon. Joel Parker of Cambridge, Judge Patch of Lowell, Hon. James H. Duncan of Haverhill, Mass., Rev. George Putnam, D. D., of Mass., Dr. Garcelon, Governor of Maine, Dr. Willard Parker of the Inebriate Asylum at Binghamton, N. Y., A. Schwartz, Esq., the distinguished editor and publisher of the _Americanischer Bierbrauer_, and many others, comprising eminent statesmen, judges, and divines of all the states of the Union.
Our legislators should consider it their solemn duty to protect and foster the manufacture and sale of pure beer, and should frame such laws as will protect the people against imposition and secure the manufacture of an article that shall not only be made from good materials, but be thoroughly well brewed and wholesome, and sold at a moderate price.
Such a course will prove a blessing to mankind, and we do not hesitate to say, that notwithstanding what fools or fanatics may say, preach or write, Americans, and particularly those of the Eastern States, who are probably the most practical people on the face of the globe, will before long adopt beer as their national beverage. In doing so they will but follow the example of the most civilized countries of Europe; and it will soon be recognized that every brewery and every beer saloon helps to loosen the grasp which alcohol has on any country where distilled liquors are habitually used. Thomas Jefferson, writing Dec. 13, 1818, to M. de Neuville in reference to intemperance and the use of light wines as a substitute for spirits, says, “No nation is drunken where wine is cheap.” Beer is yet less alcoholic than wine of any sort and has advantages of its own which will be discussed in due place. Experience shows that sound, wholesome beer at a moderate cost is the best catholicon yet discovered for intemperance. It weans a people gradually but surely from strong drink and brings happiness, content and morality in the place of dissipation and suffering. But it must be good, cheap and accessible, and the responsibility of making it so rests with our lawgivers. The poorer classes are those who need it most and cause most injury and loss to the state when for lack of it they consume ardent spirits—and these cheap and adulterated.
In spite of all difficulties considerable progress has been made, as is shown by a consumption last year of more than nine million (9,473,361) barrels of beer, which is the best evidence of a step in the right direction towards national temperance.
##