PRINCIPAL GRANT'S LETTERS 
 
 ON 
 
 PROHIBITION 
 
 As they appeared in the Toronto Daily ** Globe/' December^ J897, 
 
 Tanuary^ $S98* 
 
 Y. 
 
PRINCIPAL GRANT'S LETTERS 
 
 ON 
 
 PROHIBITION. 
 
 As they appeared in the Toronto Daily **Glol»e,** December, 1897, 
 
 January, 1898. 
 
 PRINCIPAL GRANT'S FIRST LETTER, 
 
 In which he introduces the subject, and concludes with the state- 
 ment that he finds it his duty to vote against Prohibition. 
 
 {Special Correapondence of The Olobe.) > 
 
 The Government of Canada has promised that the mind of the people 
 regarding the prohibiting the importation, manufacture and sale of intoxi- 
 cants bhall be ascertained by means of a plebiscite. Parliament will 
 probably be asked at its next session to provide means for taking the 
 vote. If a majority vote } ea, the Government will be under a moral 
 obligation to introduce the neeessriry legislation to give effect to the vote; 
 for even though the popular will shall haye been ascertained in an extra- 
 constitutional way, the Government, by adopting the plebiNcite, incurs 
 the responsibility of accepting the verdict and giving it the force of law. 
 
 And yet it has not been stated officially whether the question shall 
 simpiy be, "Are you in favor ot prohibition " r A\hnner we shall aiso 
 be asked as to our willingness to bear our share ot the direct taxaticn 
 which the change may involve. 
 
 iS either has it been stated as yet whether a majority of those actually 
 voting, or a majority of the whole electorate, shall be considered by the 
 Government to be an adequate expression ot the popular will. But, 
 once the principle of the plebiscite has been accepted, both of these 
 points are of minor importance, though I have no wish to belittle either 
 of thenu. 
 
 The matter of transcendent importance is that the Government haa 
 promised, in accordance with the pro>rrauuue adopted at the Liberal 
 Convention of lrt93, to submit to direct vote a question involving, net 
 only great commercial, manufacturing and induNtrial interests, but also 
 popular habits and tastes and public morality. The Premier must have 
 thought well before giving the promise. He must have come to the c«d- 
 cluMion that there was something unworthy of statesmen in palterinfi^ 
 longer with a question which had agitated the public for many years, and 
 had been staved off by glittering unrealities. He must have decided that 
 to deal straighttorwardiy with it and to throw upon the whole people the 
 re^ponsibilitiy of givin»/.a decision was wiser, and certaia'y mere moral, 
 
tban to try an<it htiffibug^ hin^ere advocates 6/ j>fobibition with subter- 
 fuges or vague promises. 
 
 Time to corsimjii our duty. 
 
 ITDquestionably he has taken a great risk ; but if his doing so springs 
 from tmst in the good sense of tne people, as we have a right to sup- 
 pose, i4 is high time for us to consider our duty in the premises with all 
 seriousness and calmness. So far as I know, the proposal to enforce pro- 
 hibition has never yet been submitted by a Government to the votes of 
 any nation in the world. Municipalities, counties, Provinces, States have 
 voted for anci have actually tried prohibition; but for a Dominion 
 scattered over half a continent to try it, especially with a boundary line 
 of thousands of miles, on the other side of which it is lawful to import, 
 manufacture and sell, is an experiment that one is tempted to term 
 quixotic. 
 
 And yet, jiudging by the results of votes which have been taken in 
 Manitoba, Ontario and the Maritime Provinces, the people seem ready to 
 try tbA experiment. True, a number of electoi-s, not favorable to pro- 
 hibition, but wbo dislike the liquor traffic and sympathize with the 
 moral fervor of many who are fighting against it, declined to go to the 
 polls. But this class may take the same attitude when a Dominion 
 prohibit€)ry law is proposed. 
 
 Though a sane, we are a young people, and therefore not di8incliue4 
 to try a big experiment. We feel, with ill-founded confidence, that 
 should it fail it will be quite easy for us to gQ back to the former state 
 of things, just as in 1884> the 8eott Act, carried in nearly the whole of 
 Ontario, was in a few years repealed by majorities larger than those by 
 which it had been carried. 
 
 Is this the reason why the great organs of public 6^ii](i(jf& tttV6 as yet 
 said little or nothing on the subject ? Or is it because party interests of 
 their own circulation would suffer if they took a decided stand against 
 prohibition ? If the former be the reason, they have not considered how 
 much more is involved in Dominion than in local legislation. If the 
 latter, only those who are willing themselves to risk something have the 
 right to blame them. Clergymen in active work are not free to take 
 any side but one on this question, and therefore silence on their part is 
 legitimate. There is hardly one who has not in his congregation par- 
 ishioBers who have suffered, directly or indirectly, because of drunken- 
 ness, and to these even a Scriptural argument against prohibition seems 
 a plea for drunkenness or a refusal to put a stop to its ravages. When 
 that comes from their own minister it seems to them like a blow from 
 the sanctuary. T'he average politician has also good reason for keeping 
 silence. He well knows how intensely some of his friends and some of 
 Ms foes feel on the subject. It is not for him to give offence to the one 
 class aud aid and comfort to the other. 
 
 • But there are men in Canada — employers of labor^ mechanics trusted by 
 their fellows, educational authorities, students of history and sociology, lit- 
 erary men, and oUiers — competent and also free to speak out on this great 
 public, non-party and: moral question. With submission it seems to me 
 that it is their duty to do so now, and as no man has a right to ask 
 others when he himself is unwilling to give or do, aceordii^ to the mea^ 
 sure of his ability, I pvopose to offer a contribution to the discussion. 
 
After long and eament consideration I have come to the conclnilon 
 that a Dominion prohibitory law would be burtfhl to the cause of 
 temperance and most hnrtftil to general public and private moral- 
 Itj. Believing this, it is surely my duty to go to the polls and to 
 vote ••No** to the question **Are yon in favor of prohibition?" 
 
 In another communication I shall give some of the reasons that have 
 led^me to this conclusion. 
 
 Kingston, December 4, 1897. O. M. Grant. 
 
 PRINCIPAL GRANT'S SECOND LETTER. 
 
 Dealing with the Experiment of Prohibition in Maine, and its 
 Results, and also with the Failure of the Scott Ael in 
 
 Ontario. 
 
 (Special dyrrtspoiidence of The Glolm.) , 
 
 The people of Canada, as compared with all other Christian nations, 
 are singularly abstemious. In making comparisons I must confine my- 
 self to Christendom, for Mahomet and Oantama, the Buddha — unlike 
 Je.sus — absolutely prohibited the use of intoxicating liquors. Every 
 good Mahomedan and Buddhist is therefore a pledged abstainer; but, 
 though we are sometimes promised the millennium under a regime of 
 prohibition, no millennium has come yet in Turkey or Armenia, nor 
 where Buddhism has been supreme for more than a thousand years. 
 
 The sobriety of the people of Canada is admitted. Mr. Spence re- 
 cently stated that the consumption of alcoholic liquors per head in the 
 United States averages 17 gallons a year and in Canada 4| gallons. 
 What makes this state of things the more remarkable is that, as a rule, 
 northern peoples drink more than those to the south of them, and also 
 that the United States has been the great home and happy hunting 
 ground of prohibition for half a century. It seems to me that if the 
 conditions of the two countries were reversed, I would be ashaniei to go 
 to our .sober neighbors and lecture them on their duty in the matter of 
 temperance. I might be offered a good fee per night for my services, 
 but shame itself would make me contine my efforts to my own distress- 
 ful country, even if it were not evident to a self-respecting* man that 
 each people can best paddle its own canoe in its own watera. 
 
 CANADA I.S TEMPERATE, 
 
 What has led to our comparatively happy condition of things ? A 
 great variety of causes — the healthy, religious sentiment of the people 
 which responds to every sane appeal with regard to admitted evils, an 
 improved public opinion regarding drunkenness, tippling, treating and 
 the use socially of wine or spirits ; better food, lodging and clothing for 
 the masses ; more refined amusements for all ; better cooking ; better 
 sanitation ; these and other causes have combined with the earnest efforts 
 of temperance reformers to bring about the happy result. We have been 
 
6 
 
 winning in the fight for tempemnce for 50 years, aa everyone will admit 
 who knuwR what the social cusUmm were 50, or even 10 or 20, years ago. 
 The victory is not yet completely won, but why in the name of <:ommon 
 tense should we throw away the well-tried swords which have served us 
 80 well for the rusty razors of prohibition and constant political fighting 
 to secure new amendments to meet ever new evasions of coercive laws ? 
 
 We have already had trials* In different Provinces, of connty pro* 
 hihltloHt and the resnlts, f^om a temperance point of view, are not 
 OBConrafflng. For Instance, In Ontario, from 1885 to I8H0, the Scott 
 Act years, the convictions for drunkenness averaged annnally 6,943. 
 In 1889 the convictions were 7.050. On the other hand. In 1804, 
 when we were fk'ee f^om the 8cott Act, the convictions were only 
 S9X67. I understand that there were still fewer convictions In 1805 
 and 1806, hut I have not been able to get official returns lor those 
 years. 
 
 PROHIBITION IN MAINE. 
 
 The State of Maine, however, affords a much better illustration of 
 what. prohibition can and cannot do than any of our Provinces, and it, 
 besides, i» the place to which prohibitionists point with greatest confi- 
 dence. During the early rart of the century Maine was, perhaps, the 
 most drunken State in the Liuon. A recoil, essentially relijjious in its 
 origin, began in 18. 6, which reached its climax in the course of the next 
 15 years. Total abr.tinence became a popular enthusiasm all over the 
 S*fltA As early as 1831 the ofiicial year-book of the State said that 
 " the quantity of ardent spirits consumed in Maine has been (reduced 
 two-t'iirds within three years." The idea of prohibition never entered 
 the minds of those early reformers. The Washingtonian movement, 
 whose achievements in suppressing intemperance were enthusiastically 
 celebrated in popular songs, reached Maine in 1840, but neither did it 
 dream of prohibition. As one of the leakit-rs said in 1841 : " Washing- 
 tr>niHns are firm believers in the efficacy and power of moral suasion ; 
 this they believe to be the main lever ; they hold that doctrine to be un- 
 eound which includes the principle of coercion, and therefore they can- 
 not go hand in hand with those who cry out ' give us the strong arm of 
 the law '." Human nature, however, is impatient, and success is apt to 
 make it intoleiant. It lovosl ort cuts. 
 
 nalne enacted a prohibitory law In 1846. What has been the re- 
 mit ? In the half century that has since elapsed 30 amendments 
 have been called for to meet the evasions and the difficulties attend- 
 Ing attempts at enforcing the law ! Just as men who have drunk too 
 ■inch are thirsty and cry ** more brandy," so the Maine prohibition- 
 ists have never ceased to cry for ** more law." 
 
 Let me refer all who are interested in a study of the Maine liquor 
 laws, and indeed of the whole question, to an admirable volume entitled 
 " The Liquor Problem in its Legislative Aspects," which gives the results 
 of a careful, thorough and impartial investigation, under the direction 
 of the mont eminent educational and social reformers in the United 
 States. Thisi enables fair-minded men to form conclusions regarding 
 what prohibition can, and what it cannot, do. 
 
1CVA8I0N OF THE LAW. 
 
 Prohibition can abolish the manufacture on a large scale of distilied, 
 fermented and malt liquors within the area covered by the law. Whether 
 it is moral to abolish factories in which men have invested their pro- 
 perty, and which have grown up under the law, without offering the 
 slightest compensation to those whose property is destroyed by law, is 
 another question. But no one pretends that prohibition can abolish il- 
 licit manufacture ; and illicit stills always turn out the strongest and 
 most poisonous liquors. In Maine, the "hard" liquor usually sold pro- 
 duces forms of intemperance most injurious to health and life. It is 
 difficult to obtain malt liquors on account of their bulk. "The stricter 
 the enforcement the poorer the liquor," which is often nothing but alcohol 
 purchased from druggists and sold after dilution under the name of 
 " split." 
 
 Prohibition can prevent the open importation of wine, beer or spirits. It 
 cannot prevent smuggling, which, even without prohibition, Huurishes at 
 present along the Lower St. Lawrence with increasing vigor, according to 
 the increase of the tariff or of licenHes. Sir Richard Cartwright stated at 
 the last session of Pat liament thal^the loss to the revenue from this smug- 
 gling was $800,000 a year, and that it,, was demoralizing the people of 
 whole parishes. It would be impossible, he said, to bring guilt home to 
 the principals without the aid of informers. The Government got a vote 
 to pay informers, but very little has been done. The long, unsettled 
 coasts of the gulf afford the smugglers too many facilities. The recent 
 increase in duties has also led to an extensive illicit manufacture of al- 
 cohol in the country. What would liappen under a Dominion prohibi- 
 tion law ? Smuggling and illicit distilling would abound more and more 
 in spite of armies of informers. 
 
 Prohibition can remove open temptation from the young and from per- 
 sons disposed to alcoholic excess. It is practically helpless against " dives," 
 " pocket-peddlers " and all the well-known variety of secret temptation 
 which have such a fascination for the young. " Stolen waters are Hweet." 
 Still less can it subdue that desire for some stimulant which is all but 
 universal in human nature, and which, when ordinary means of gratifica- 
 tion are denied, finds relief in opium, morphine, chloral and drugs and 
 drinks of various kinds more pernicious to the constitution than even 
 whiskey. 
 
 COLLUSIVE SELLING. 
 
 Prohibition can prevent tlie open sale of intoxicants, tliouKii as 
 long as druggists or other agents are allowed to sell for medicinal, 
 mechanical or sacramental nses, or for nse in the arts, it is extreme- 
 ly diflicalt to distinguish one class of buyers from another. Bnt it 
 can do nothing towards subduing the natural resistance of the 
 human, and especially of the British heart, to restrictive legislation, 
 which is an infringement on personal liberty. 
 
 " It is only in regions where prohibition prevails that illicit selling as- 
 sumes large proportions." (See the report signed by President Eliot of 
 Harvard, Piesideiit Low of Columbia, and James C. Carter of New 
 York.) 
 
8 
 
 Now while, accoroing to these eminent authoritieii, " the most minute 
 and painstaking legislation has failed to attain the object of the prohi- 
 bitionists/' let me quote a few sentences from their terrible arraignment 
 of " concomitant evils of prohibitory legislation in Maine." 
 
 CONCOMITANT EVILS. 
 
 " The efforts to enforce it during 40 years past have had some unlook- 
 ed-for effects on public respect for courts, judicial procedure, oaths and 
 law in general, and for officers of the law, legislators and public servants. 
 The public have seen law defied, a whole generation of habitual law- 
 breakers schooled in evasion and shamelessness, courts ineffective through 
 fluctuatioils of policy, delays, penuries, negligences and other miscar- 
 riages of justice, officers of the law double-faced and mercenary, legislators 
 timid and insincere, candidates for office hypocritical and truckling, and 
 office-holders unfaithful to pledges and to reasonable public expecLction. 
 . . The liquor traffic, being very profitable, has been able, when at- 
 tacked by prohibitory legislation, to pay fines, bribes, hnsh-money and 
 assessments for political purposes to large amounts. This monev has 
 tended to corrupt the lower courts, the police administration, political 
 organizations and even the electorate itself. . . Frequent yielding to 
 this temptation causes general degeneration in public li^e, breeds con- 
 tempt for the public service, and, of course, makes the service less desir- 
 able for uprignt men. . . All legislation intended to put restrictions 
 on the liquor traffic, except, perhaps, the simple tax, is more or less liable 
 to these objections ; but the prohibitory legislation is the worst of all in 
 these respects, because it stimulates to the utmost the resistance of the 
 liquor dealers and their supporters."! 
 
 Who would not rather have even the drinking customs as they were 
 50 years ago in Ontario than such a horrible state of things corrupting 
 society at its fountain heads ? Fortunately, however, we are not called 
 upon to choose between the two evils. We can continue to improve 
 without attempting dangerous experiments on so delicate and compli- 
 cated an organism as modem society. 
 
 GiiOROE M. Grant. 
 Kingston, December 4th, 1897. 
 
 PRINCIPAL GRANTS THIRD LETTER. 
 
 Sfaowiog that Prohibition ha» been a fallnre wlierevcr tried, and 
 
 that rank hypocrisy results from this method of 
 
 dealing with Intemperance. 
 
 (Special Correspoiuieivce of The Globe.) 
 
 The fact that, in 1884, a prohibitory amendment was added to the 
 constitution of Maine, and that in 1890 a proposal to repeal the amend- 
 ment was em^thically voted down, is often given as sufficient answer 
 to the evidence thilt prohibition does not prohibit. But no one doubts 
 that a large majority of the people were enthusiastic abstainers before 
 
9 
 
 1846 ; and the temperance organizations once converted to prohibition 
 have continued to lifi^ht it out on that line ever since. In this, ns in the 
 case of Mahomet, Carlyle's questioa is the crucial one — " How did he 
 
 Kt his sword 1 " By moral means ; but, alas ! having gotten it thun, he 
 d not sufficient faith in humanity or in his message to trust to spirit- 
 ual force. He fell back on coercion, and his successors have rested on it 
 ever since. As we Christians have again and again manifested similar 
 laotc of faith, we must not be too hard on Mahomet ; but there is no 
 need for us to continue imitating him. 
 
 MADE A PARTY QUESTION. 
 
 The question of prohibition in Maine soon became a party one, and 
 so it has remained. In 1884 the constitutional amendment was adopted 
 by the Republicans, the country was on the eve of a Presidential election, 
 and men, many of whom hated the measure, had to pay the price for 
 prohibitionist support. Yet the total vote was very small. In 1890 
 repeal would have been equivalent to declaring the failure of Repub- 
 lican policy in the State, and that admission the iea<lers of the dominant 
 party could not atiord. Here we can see & great evil that has resulted 
 from prohibition. A movement which began on a lofty moral plane has 
 become merely the football of partisan politics. The trained investi- 
 gators already quoted give the following evidence : — " Men in sympathy 
 with the aim oi prohibition complain that temperance work, which for- 
 merly reached the masses, has degenerated into meetings for political 
 purposes, or that the agitation for abstinence ha.^ become a cry for police 
 and detective methods. The identification of great temperance organi- 
 zations with party politics has crippled their indueuce as popular moral 
 agents, however much it may have aided the election of officials chosen 
 for prohibitory purposes." Dealing with this point of the relation of 
 politics to prohibition, the writers point out its baleful efl[ect8 : — " Men 
 assume a friendly attitude towards the law in which they disbelieve. 
 The question of enforcement depends mainly on political exigencies, 
 which again depend on the state of public opinion. A full-blown 
 hypocrisy must result from this method of dealing with prohibition. 
 Nowhere is it so blatant as in the Legislative halls, where men lend 
 their votes in support of restrictive measures of which they not only 
 disapprove, but violate openly, and even grossly. The corrupting influ- 
 ence of a large social element thriving in defiance of all law needs no 
 further elucidation ; bribery, perjury, and official dishonor follow it." 
 
 ENDED IN FAILURE. 
 
 What a sorry ending for a noble crusade ! Is not such a state of 
 things, in public and private life, infinitely more odious in the sight of 
 God and man than if there was as much drinking in the State of Maine 
 as there is, say, in England, Scotland, Ireland, Sweden or even in Can- 
 ada ? But there is no need of argument on the point at issue. Pro- 
 hibitionists admit frankly that in Maine the law d)Oe» not prohibit. On 
 this I submit, not my own testimony, or the testfmony of friends, or of 
 the correi^pondents of New York papers who have recently attended 
 conventions, or other gatherings in the principal cities, but simply the 
 
10 
 
 following statement from the platform of the prohibitionists of the 
 State met in convention at Waterville on April 30, 1896 : — 
 
 ** We declare that the State or Maine presents a condition or care- 
 lessness that disgraces its civiliisation, that nullification of the liquor 
 law is widespread and opcLS that whole commnnlties are compelled 
 to consent to a shameless, illegal traffic, that country officials work 
 the law fur purpses of revenue, and that long continued famili- 
 arity with illegal rum-selling has begotten, in a considerable num- 
 ber of citizens, a disrespect of the authority of the law in general.*' 
 
 More of the same could be given, but this is enough. Good men are 
 not going to work hard to serve such ends. 
 
 ONTARIO AND MAINE COMPARED. 
 
 It is admitted that prohibition does prevent high-minded, nervous, 
 sensitive and other people from getting whiskey, wine, or beer, even 
 though they believe that it is required for their health. These classes 
 will not stoop to the degradation of breaking the law or frequenting the 
 purlieus to which the traffic betakes itself. But, feeling the need of 
 tonics or stimulants, they get them legally and at an awful cost to brain 
 and nerve. Here is a table which tells a tale. The population ot Maine 
 is 670,000, of Ontario about 2,200,000. The number of insane persons 
 to the thousand is pretty much the same in the State and the Province, 
 but as regards idiots wh9,t do the statistics say ? 
 
 Maine, Ontario, ■ 
 
 1896. 1896. 
 
 Number'of idiots 1,591 605 
 
 Number of deaf and dumb 627 310 
 
 Number of blind '. . . . 672 141 
 
 How does it hi-'pen that a fine State like Maine, with a vigorous, 
 homogeneous t ovulation, chiefly agricultural, lumbering and seafaring, 
 has eight or n le times as may idiots to the thousand as Ontario ? The 
 cause is said to be that people have betaken themselves to alcoholized 
 patent medicines and other kinds of pernicious stimulants. From the 
 character of the drunkenness I have seen in Maine, the dull, bemused 
 fates and idiotic stare, and from what has been told me of the use of 
 morphine in districts formerly under the Scott Act in Canada, I believe 
 that this is one of the causes. Other features of the physical and re- 
 ligious condition of the peo,ple might be referred to, but it is sufficient 
 to touch on direct and admitted results. 
 
 Prohibition, then, has been morally a failure, even when applied 
 only to a homogeneous Province or State, with a strong public opin- 
 ion in favor of the law. What would happen if the experiment were 
 tried on the mingle^, races not yet fused into racial or national unity 
 scattered over the vast areas of the Dominion of Canada ? Little 
 reflection is needed to convince us that its failure wonld be more 
 certain and more disastrous. 
 
11 
 
 INAPPLICABLE IN CITIES. 
 
 It is admitted that prohibition requires for its success a vigorous 
 public opinion in its favor. lis advocates should therefore insist on 
 securing a positive majority of the electorate before calling for the 
 enactment of the law. That is not their usual attitude. It is also 
 admitted that the law fails most conspicuously in large centres of popu- 
 lation. Consequently, Massachusetts after trying prohibition for several 
 years gave it up in 1874. During the latter years of the trial no serious 
 attempts were made to enforce the law in cities like Boston, in spite of 
 the strong Puritan element in them and the resolute Repuolican spirit 
 which feels that toleration of disobedience to law is a disgrace to the 
 commonwealth. But when the epithets " rum-ruled " and " rum-ridlen " 
 are to this day applied by the prohibitionists themselves to small cities 
 like Portland, Lewi.ston and Bangor, what chance would there be of 
 enforcing prohibition in Montreal, Toronto, Quebec and other Canadian 
 cities ? 
 
 PROVINCIAL COERCION. 
 
 Again, it is geneially admitted that the Provinces of Quebec and 
 British Columbia will vote against prohibition. Are we going to 
 coerce whole Provinces or deprive them of the Provincial and n)unicipal 
 revenues which come from the liquor traffic? Let ua not forget that 
 those two Provinces and the Yukon Territory are peculiarly open to the 
 operations of smugglers and illicit manufacturers. We are having a 
 taste of this fact, even under a license system, as has been shown. But 
 general public opinion now is against the smuggler. Then it would be 
 on his side. What chance would there be of enforcing a prohibitory 
 law in the mining camps and cities of British Columbia or along the 
 creeks that run into the Yukon ? This great river of Alaska is theopftn 
 road all the way from St. Michael's in the United States up to Dawson 
 and to other " cities " that will spring into existence, like Jonah's gourd 
 and flit from place to place with their inhabitants, leaving as little trace 
 as the tents of the Arabs. Along this broad, open summer roadway 
 supplies will be sent up. Of what the demand for whiskey is likely to 
 be anyone who knows placer pioneers can tell us. To these adven- 
 turers a drink is as necessary as a smoke, and if we are going to stop their 
 grog we had better begin to enlist an army at once and turn the whole 
 Mounted Police force into detectives. Then we might be able to sub- 
 stitute " split " for more wholesome or less poisonous liquors, but that 
 would be all. The flow of bad whiskey could be no more stopped than 
 the flow of the Yukon. 
 
 FRONTIER DIFFICULTIES. 
 
 Again, let us not forget thii? outstanding fact of our geographical 
 position, that our frontier marches with the United States for thou- 
 sands of miles. To illustrate what this would mean under a Dominion 
 prohibitory law, let a thoughtful business man, of well-known temper- 
 ance sympathies, in any one of our border towns, write a letter to The 
 Globe dealing with the one point of the probable results there and in 
 the town on the other side of the river or boundary line. What would 
 be the result in Sarnia, for .instance, and 'in Port Huron ? One thing is 
 
12 
 
 certain, that the hearts of the liquor-sellers and of merchants generally 
 in Port Huron would be made glad. 
 
 We may assnme, then, that the law would be a failure In the Pro- 
 vinces and Territories specified, In our large cities and along the bor- 
 der, and wherever public opinion was not In Its favor* Experience 
 shows that the local authorities would decline to enforce It, and if a 
 Dominion Constabulary were appointed nothing certain would be 
 gained in the end, save enormously increased expense. 
 
 To discredit local self-government in a vain attempt to defeat the will 
 of the people of a Province would be a fine achievement for any Gov- 
 ernment, Liberal or -Conservative ! The penalty might be raised from 
 fines to imprisonment, but all experience shows that it is then impossible 
 to obtain convictions in liquor cases. The moral is so obvious that it 
 need not be drawn. 
 
 RESPECT FOR LAW. 
 
 Could the law stand under all the obloquy certain to be heaped upon * 
 it in our great centres, to begin with ? At present Canada is honorably 
 distinguished by the respect for law shown in all its borders. Miners 
 from the United States feel from the first that the tone in this respect 
 is different from what they have been accustomed to and they conform 
 readily to ours, at any rate, after their first contact with Canadian law, 
 dressed in the garb of policeman or judge. Do not let us strain to the 
 breaking point the traditional respect of our own people for the law. 
 That is the result of centuries of training, and once broken it will not 
 be restored in our day. It is like a woman's honor, too sacred to be 
 trifled with. 
 
 I have abstained from speaking of the millions of revenue sacrificed 
 by prohibition, of the cost of enforcement, or of the tens of millions 
 worth of property virtually destroyed, because others can deal better 
 with this side of the subject, and it is well sometimes to keep discussions 
 on a higher plane than that of finance. Financial considerations cannot 
 indeed be disregarded, and those who make light of the summary de- 
 ptri 3tion of th? pro^^erty and iaduftnes oi others ought at least to give 
 a thought to the intense hatreds " sure to be engendered in the minds of 
 hundreds ruined and thousands thrown out • of work. These sufferers 
 would do everything in their power to defy, evade and discredit the 
 law. From hating coercion they would pass inevitably to hatred even 
 of the abstinence which is practised from the loitiest motives, and 
 harden their hearts against the most earnest, appeals of the beat preachers 
 of temperance. 
 
 Are we, then, to do nothing, are we to stand idly by while intemper- 
 ance slays its thousands, earnest men and women may ask ? Certainly 
 not. We must be up and doing, but along right lines and not by ex- 
 ploded methods. Christians are surely not idle now. If we are not do- 
 ing our best to raise the lallen, to inspire the doubting with faith and to 
 save the lost, we are not Christ's disciples. True, we also have a duty 
 to do as regards legislation. But my task at present is not to inquire 
 what is the best liquor law for Canada, but to point out that prohibition 
 would be the worst. 
 
 Kingston^ Dec. 4 1897. Geo. M Grant. 
 
18 
 
 PRINCIPAL GRANTS FOURTH LETTER. 
 
 In whica he replies to his critics, and shows that Prohibition is not 
 based on equity, bat is class legislation of the worst kind. 
 
 {Special Correspondence of The Globf.) 
 
 My lettO™ ^^ prohibition have elicited replies the general nature of 
 which may b ® j"^g®d by the remark ot that unimpeachable authority, 
 The Templar ; " Many correspondents and many of our exchanges have 
 attributed base mo.^^i^es to Dr. Grant." The imputation of motives throws 
 little light on the subject, but much light on The Templar's correspondents 
 and exchanges— if thei:© is good foundation for the m^tto of the Order 
 of the Garter. I also ha\'e received a great many letters, some of them 
 from gentlemen, while others can only be described by saying that — 
 compared with them— Dr. Cariu^an's ^-^e models of literary style and 
 Christian temper, and Bystander's Wu^rthy of the aged scholar. Reply to 
 them, or even to Dr. Carman, or to the eajtor of The Farmers' Sun is im- 
 possible. Several of The Globe's corresponuents, however, belong to a 
 diflFerent -class, and after concluding my course of letters to The Globe — 
 now to be postponed, I may say, till the hurly-burly of the election is 
 over — I shall do my best to answer them, readily admitting any weak- 
 jiess in the argument that may be shown, at the risk of forfeiting the 
 ijtdmiration of The Templar, which " appreciates {most a good man who 
 :,makes no mistakes." Do men who make no mistakes ever make any- 
 7 thing? Are they not generally uncandid, cowardly, or poor, colorless 
 •>■ creatures ? 
 
 .'I.must, however, not delay acknowledging that Mr. Frizzellhas pointed 
 » out IE his last letter a mistake which, though not affecting my main 
 . argument, is of some importance. From a pamphlet entitled "The 
 
 • Qnestion of a Dominion Prohibitory Law," considered in its financial, 
 moral, And religious aspects, by Wakefield Hardgrave, A.B., (Toronto : 
 The Authors' Publishing Co., 1897), I gave the number of idiots, blind 
 
 • deaf and dumb in Maine, and in the Dominion ; and I find now, thanks 
 ' to Mr. Frjiezel}, that the table, not being based on similar data in the two 
 . cases, is worthless. The census returns, and what is known regarding 
 ' the number of our idiots, seem to show \ihat there are decidedly more, 
 I proportionately, in Maine than in Ontario, but as an exact comparison can- 
 r not be madejl unreservedly withdraw that portion of my letter ; just as 
 . one reverend. gentleman will readily withdraw his statement that I was 
 
 one of the minority who dissented from the finding of the last General 
 Assembly, and another will withdraw his attack on me for not having 
 expressed my yiews there instead of in the columns of The Globe, on 
 learning that I was not in Winnipeg when the subject came before the 
 House. As their general argument is not affected by the mistake, neither 
 is mine ; for the one point I am endeavoring to prove is that a Dominion 
 prohibitory law would injure temperance and public and political 
 morality. 
 
 I also admit, and indeed never dreamed of denying, that the General 
 Assembly has pa$s^,resolutions in favor of prohibition, but whatever 
 
14 
 
 respert may be demanded for soch resolutions, their moral weight is 
 greatly IcsMened by the fact that a majority of the men who have 
 been called to the Moderator's chair since the Union have been on the 
 other Hide, as well as the most distinguished of our laymen and clergy- 
 men, like the late Rev D. J. IMacMlonell, Or. IMilligan, Dr. Barclay, Dr. 
 Thompson and others quite as representative of the best thought and 
 work of the church as even its Moderators. 
 
 THE IOWA CONVENTION. 
 
 The object of the rest of this letter is to consider the fundamental 
 question as to the duty of the State regarding the importation, munu- 
 Kicture, and sale of articles the exees'*ive use of which is injurious. The 
 declaration of the Iowa State Temperance Convention in 18^5 that "the 
 manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor 'as a beverage is a crime per 
 se" certainly does not settle the question. Indeed, how can rational or 
 Christian men believe such an assertion ? Is it innocent for men to use 
 the juice of the grape in the autumn, but criminal to preserve it for 
 winter use, after it passes through the natural process of fermentation 
 into a condition in which it can be preserved ? Logically, it would be as 
 sensible to say that it is lawful to eat wheat, but not to eat it when baked 
 into bread, because it has gone through the process of fermentation. If 
 it is a sin or crime to sell a glass of wine it must be equally so to drink 
 it, and if one party to the transaction is punished the other should be 
 also. And if it is a crime to drink a glass it must be so to drink a mouth- 
 ful, and, therefore, the countless millions who have obeyed the dying com- 
 mand of their Lord have been criminals ! The conclusion is shocking, 
 but there is no escape from it, if the Iowa principle be accepted and if 
 logic counts for anything. Consistently, therefore, the Maine law forbids 
 negatively the use of wine for sacramental purposes, for it allows it to be 
 sold only for m'^dicinal or mechanical purposes. All men have eaual 
 rights l)ef&re the law. and to Mohammedans and Buddhists sacrame. lal 
 and beverage use would be the same, as well as a practice f )rhid'ien \:V 
 their religion. Indeed, at the in«?titution of the Suppei f^e wine ^Sk~ 
 used as a bevcraixe and it is stiil so used, though in practice each commu- 
 nicant drinks only a small quantity. 
 
 Dismissing, then, the Iowa declaration as repugnant both to common 
 sense and religion, do we find any firmer ground in the assertion that the 
 law has as much right to forbid the sale of anything that intoxicates as 
 it has to forbid murder, thett, arson or anything else that is wrong per se ? 
 This contention is as worthless as the oti er. The law cannot make that 
 to be a Clime which the reason and conscience of humanity refuses to 
 consider a crime, without enlisting society in o])position to law. A iittls 
 consideration will make it clear that, while laws ajrainst murder or thett 
 are necessary to the existence of society, laws against the use of what 
 may be abused are opposed to its highest good, that is, to the Iree devel- 
 opment of society. "They are not skilful considerers of human things/' 
 says Mdton, " who think to remove sin by removing the matter of sin : 
 for, though some part of it may for a time be withdrawn from some per- 
 sons, it cannot from all. And supposing we could exp^l sin by these 
 meani? ; I'X'k, how much we thus expel cf sin, so much we expel of virtue. 
 
15 
 
 for the matter of both of them is the same ; remove that and ye remove 
 both alike. ThisjustiBes tie Ugh Providence of God, who, though He 
 commends us temperance, yet pours out before us, even to prof useness, all 
 desirable things." 
 
 INDIVIDUAL FBEEDOM. 
 
 The problem of how far the State may go in limiting the freedom of 
 the individual for the sake of the general welfare is confessedly a diffi- 
 cult one, but ♦flat is not the problem here. How can the general welfaf^e 
 be prompted by limiting freedom ad thereby, as Milton says, "abridging 
 those means which are for the trial of virtue and the exercise of truth ? " 
 Surely the aim and method of a free society should correspond to the 
 Divine method. The object of every worthy society should be to «levelop 
 its citizens into more and more perfect freedom ; and freedom, let it al- 
 ways be remembered, is not a power or gift which man has to beyin with, 
 but the goal, or end, to which the whole process of development is direct- 
 ed. Long ago it used to be thought the function of the State to protect 
 grown men against themselves, on the plea that the State or the church, 
 that is, in one word, somebody else, knew what was good for them better 
 than they knew themselves. Thus the law in Spain prevented men from 
 becoming Protestants and the law in Sweden prevented them from be- 
 coming Roman Catholics ; the Puritan Parliament of England pronounced 
 the punishment of death on all who denied the doctrine of the Trinity, 
 and Russia still punishes horribly the poor Stundi.Nts for not adhering to 
 the Orthodox Church. All these prohibitory laws, too, met with a large 
 measure of success, for in the old days law was enforced with uncom- 
 promising vigor, as it still is in Russia. 
 
 Bat even in those days they tried in vain to enforce prohibitory 
 laws against the nse of beer ; and we thought that society had out- 
 grown tlie notion that the way to develop men in to multiply la w.s aud 
 to .etter personal Lberty. 
 
 Tt ' no': the f: net' on of a free State to protect grown men against 
 themselves. If men abuse their liberty to the injury ot others, let tiiem 
 be duly punished and their own conscit-nces will assent to this as right- 
 eous; or let them be cared for as weaklings and wise efforts made for 
 their reformation. All that is right and within the function of the State, 
 but it is not right when for the sake of criminals and weaklings the com- 
 munity is denied the natural opportunities of developing into the highest 
 condition of freedom or self-realizition. Individuals may, rather let us 
 say ought to, deny themselves fur the sake of criminals and weaklings. 
 The more of such individuals a society has the more Christian it is, pro- 
 vided always that they do not become censorius and Pharisaical in their 
 self-denial. Religion has a higher region than the State. The State 
 punishes evil, while religion says to its votaries, "Overcome evil with 
 good." The Christian principle is, " I will eat no meat, rather thar my 
 weak brother should suffer. ' But if the State enacts, " No one shall eat 
 meat lest the weak suffer," it becomes a despotism. It puts its trust in 
 the policeman or the bayonet, and instead of making its people free citi- 
 zens it makes them moral weaklings and hypocrites. 
 
16 
 
 PROTECTION, NOT OPPRESSION. 
 
 But is not a framework of law necessary for the protection of society ? 
 Certainly, but it is needed for the protection, not for the oppression, of so- 
 ciety ; not for the good, who are under a higher law, but for the bad, as 
 the apostle tells us. The State cannot add new commandme*- ts to the 
 decalogue which Christianity has accepted as a summary of moral law. 
 It rnay indeed invade the domain of personal rights as far as necessity 
 demands, but when it moves in that direction it should move slowly, 
 tentatively and not attempt more than it is reasonably sure of becoming 
 able to enforce. Otherwise it will assuredly provoke resistance from 
 men whose natural disposition is to honor and observe law. Just let 
 Parliament try such an invasion of personal rights as a prohibitory law 
 involves on cities like Toronto or Montreal, and there would be an ex- 
 plosion and a recoil against temperance which would astonish those who 
 now talk glibly about the ease with which the law could be enforced. At 
 present people are taking the matter coolly. They consider the discus- 
 sion largely academical. Probably they will not think it worth their 
 while to vote on the plebiscite. But attempt to put such a law in prac- 
 tice and the experience of astonished St. John in 1856 gives us an ink- 
 ling of what would certainly happen in cities five or ten times its size. 
 
 NOT BASED ON EQUITY. 
 
 We are told that laws educate in the right direction. Not unless they 
 are based on reason and on equity. Now, the reason of mankind has 
 spoken emphatically against prohibition. Not one Christian country has 
 tried it. States in the Union, a country with people always ready to blow 
 themselves up with rash experiments, have adopted it in haste and the 
 majority of these have repented already. Neither is it based on equity. 
 It is essentially class legislation, and that always provokes hatred. 
 
 There are dangers enough already threatening society and our national 
 welfare. Let us not add to them one that would in its effects on Cana- 
 dian life be worse than any other, and, may I venture to say to my 
 brethren in the ministry, do not countenance vile attacks on those who, 
 at much cost to their own feelings, are warning their fellow-citizens of 
 grave dangers into which they may fall through listening to their heaits 
 rather than to their heads. 
 
 Kingston, Feb. 1. G.M.Grant. 
 
 ;^^IK!^tc^^