against the whole community and against every person of whom society is composed. It must first be believed that the traffic in poison beverages is a crime in itself-malum in senot bad simply because it is prohibited.

When an intellect apprehends this proposition, and admits its truth, Conscience will not permit the personal use of poison drinks in peace. The moral nature will assert its supremacy, and the liquor crime will disappear. Until this proposition is accepted by society, intemperance will continue; for there is no power but Conscience-God's witness in the soul-which can subject the passions and appetites of men.

Conscience, to be sure, is dependent upon the exercise of reason for the basis of its action. Conscience, in an important sense, follows faith, and faith is the conclusion of the intellect, whether correct or otherwise, upon the facts, assertions, arguments and inferences considered by it, and thus conscience may impel to action in the wrong direction, because the intellect may be in error. The appetites and passions may, and often do, overcome the powers of conscience, even when intellect is most strongly convinced. The fears of pains and penalties sure to be inflicted for the violation of the laws of nature, and liable to follow the infraction of those of man, may cause hesitation, but will seldom fully restrain the tendency to evil and hurtful action. Indeed, the apprehension of punishment and the lash of conscience combined are too often powerless to prevent the grossest violations of the law of society and of God.

How can we expect that the raging appetite for strong drink can be restrained while the intellect believes that the practice is right, and conscience, while not on the side of indulgence, is at least still? The personal use of intoxicating liquor, as a drink, and not as a remedy, is, of necessity, either right or wrong. It can not be both right and wrong, nor can it be a matter of indifference; for if the personal use be a matter of indifference, it can not be hurtful, and if not hurtful, then that use is innocent, and therefore justifiable and right.

There is no debatable ground between right and wrong; the line between them is real, and not imaginary. There may be difficulty in finding it, but the line is there, and the separation between them is absolute; and the proposition which I am endeavoring to state is, that until the intellect discovers that line, and locates the act of personal use among hurtful, and therefore among sinful deeds, and thus arrays conscience against it, individuals

INTRODUCTION TO FOURTH EDITION.

xxvii

will never be induced generally to abstain from the personal use, nor will society prohibit and destroy the traffic.

It must be conceded that an act which harms or en dangers either one's self or another, or society at large, is wrong, if it be voluntary and unnecessary. Perhaps the only real distinction between an innocent and a guilty pleasure, is that the one is injurious, while the other is not.

But it may be claimed that the same act may be right under some circumstances, and wrong under others, when performed by the same individual; also, that an act may be right when done by one person, which would not be justifiable in another. Both of these propositions may be granted, and if it is now, and shall continue to be, the belief of the majority of society that this is true of the personal use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, that is to say, that sometimes, or in some degree, the personal use of alcoholic liquors as a beverage by the individual is right, although wrongful under other conditions, and that the same or like use by others, because of their greater power of self-restraint or of endurance, or for any reason, is justifiable, or even permissible, and therefore rightful, that majority is not likely to interfere seriously with the liberty of persons to judge when the use may be indulged, nor with the traffic which furnishes the means of indulgence.

Therefore it is that I think the radical question upon which the whole debate must be decided is this: Is alcohol a poison to the human body when in health? If it be a poison, any use of it as a beverage and not as a medicine is an injury, and, however slight the injury may be, it is wrong voluntarily and unnecessarily to inflict that injury upon ourselves or upon our fellow-men. The slightest self-infliction or administration to others which is needless, and avoidable becomes sinful, and therefore against conscience; and if it obtain to such extent as to justify the enactment of human laws for the protection of society to prevent it, then such use becomes criminal.

Conscience, the instinct of self-preservation and the fear of punishment and pain, all combined, sometimes are too feeble for the terrible power of alcohol over man; but they are sure to preserve those who are still free from the habit and to destroy the traffic by personal abstinence and the prohibition and penalties of law.

If, however, alcohol be not a poison to the healthy system,

then its proper use by the individual is only a matter of frequency and amount which no general rule can define or regulate. To legislate upon the subject would be like prescribing the quantity of healthful food which one shall eat and of pure water which one shall drink.

Such laws would be sumptuary in the true and in the only true sense. But how if the meat be tainted and the water foul? Can the individual knowingly, willingly and needlessly poison himself by their use, without sin? Shall not society prohibit such nefarious trade? If there be an unnatural and hurtful personal use, the result of ignorance or of some horrible and morbid appetite, shall not society protect both the victim and itself by restraining and thus saving the individuals of whom society is composed? Such legislation stands upon the same principle as that which restrains the criminal and the insane person and is no more sumptuary than the command, "Thou shalt not kill."

Again it must be conceded that it is the duty of society to prohibit the manufacture and even the temperate use of an unnecessary article, which, although it may not injure some essentially, is yet generally hurtful and in many instances. greatly injurious. Society must protect the weak against their weakness, even as it does the poor against their poverty. No man however strong is able to exist independently of his fellowmen, and there is no such thing as a personal liberty to gratify one's self with an unnecessary indulgence which tempts others to their destruction. I am my brother's keeper, or, if he be the stronger, then he is mine.

Whenever intoxicating beverages become necessary they are medicinal, and any unnecessary use is a mere wanton pleasure at the best, which, permitted by society at all, is an injury to the body at large. To prohibit the manufacture, sale and use of intoxicating beverages is thus clearly within the province of society, and is, in fact, most clearly its duty. This is recognized with reference to all dangerous poisons but alcohol, and a few others, whose charm for the senses silences the voice of public duty and enslaves the whole man to an unnatural but inexorable appetite.

This advanced position I believe to be a sound one, and, if it be granted that alcohol is a poison, that its truth must logically follow. But neither total abstinence by the individual nor prohibition of the traffic by the State will ever be generally

INTRODUCTION TO FOURTH EDITION.

xxix

accepted, and therefore the temperance movement, as its promoters understand it, must fail, until such time as the intellect and conscience of the major and ruling part of society are agreed upon the proposition that alcohol administered as a beverage is useless and pernicious, and therefore morally wrong.

Thus we are constantly forced to the fundamental question: Is alcohol in any appreciable quantity a poison to the healthy human system? Is alcohol hurtful to the human body, and therefore to the human soul, whenever the removal of disease does not require the remedial administration of a substance which would be poisonous in perfect health? If so, the individual should totally abstain from all but the medicinal personal use. If so, and the evil be serious, society should absolutely prohibit the use as a mere beverage and that trade in alcohol the existence of which renders the prevention of such use impossible.

These positions are stated now in order that they may be constantly emphasized in the mind of any one who shall so apprehend the importance of the subject as to read this book. I think the whole contention turns upon the answer to these questions.

INCREASE OF THE TRAFFIC.

The conflict of man with alcohol is so prolonged and desperate that only slight changes in the fortunes of the great war can be expected to take place in so brief time as that which has elapsed since the publication of the first edition of this book.

There are a few additional facts, here and there a little more evidence, and a little more of experience which should guide our future course; but the great movement is still the same and the combatants occupy substantially the same positions. I believe, however, that man has gained more than he has lost, although the hospital returns may not indicate it during the last year.

There has been an increase in the quantity of intoxicating liquor produced in the United States during the last year, and the consumption appears to be gaining, although it is to be hoped that there is no greater increase in actual use than in the growth of population. Still the fact must be faced that the more there is made the more there will be consumed, and that the unfettered consumption increases the demand in geometrical proportions.

The Report of Hon. John W. Mason, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1889, just issued, contains the following statement of the increased production of Spirits during the preceding year:

INCREASED PRODUCTION OF SPIRITS.

The quantity of spirits (89,358,510 gallons) produced and deposited in distillery warehouses during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1889, is more than the production (70,279,406 gallons) of the year 1888, by 19,079, 104 gallons. The difference is distributed among the different kinds known to the trade as follows:

Whether the enormous increase of the last year in the product of distilled spirits is owing to apparent reverses of the temperance cause as manifested in the high-license movement, and in the defeat of the proposed Prohibitory Constitutional Amendments in several of the States, or otherwise, it is difficult to say; but it is to be hoped that the increase of more than twenty-five per cent in a single year is abnormal. The average production during the last ten years is 83,726,306 gallons.

On page 54, the Commissioner observes that "the quantity of grain used in the production of spirits during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1889, (20,990,924 bushels) is an increase of