OCR Text |
Show 42 }'IRS'f DAY-EVENING SE~SlON. ADDRESS OF THOMAS P. H UN T. 'l'HE DUTY OF T EMPEHANCE .l\IEN AT TllE ll~\LLOT BOX. Tlte traffic iu intoxicating drinlcs is dang;r?us to the morals and to the prosperity of the country, and must. be pr~lnblled. . . It is not necessary to enumerate, ll1 detail, the ev1ls wluch h ave resulted from the traffic in poisons, to sustain this proposition. The proof relied upon, at present, is this: every state and kingd~m in Chri ste.ndom has give~ it as a reason for attempting to control the traffic, by, what IS called, the h· censc system. In seeking to place the trade in the hands of good men, and excluding it from the morally incompetent, the object is to guard the public from the abuse and nuisance of the trade. How far this object has been attained, is seen in the characters and doings of most of those who are recommended and licensed. If to beat a wife, to curse and s wear, and adulterate liquors with poisons, to violate the Sabbath, encourage gambling, allure the young, and destroy the old, be qualifications required by law to obtain a license, then verily most of the grogmen are not found wanting in their attainments. The object of the law, however, is defeated. It is high time that the license laws be repealed, and the retail traffic be prohibited. Those nuisances, over which are hung caricatures of ' Vashington, Franklin and Penn, are a disgrace to the land, and an offence against heaven. They ought to be uprooted and destroyed. Some objections against the repeal of the license laws will be attended to. 1. T¥e ruust provide places where travellers can be refreshed.-Poisons and refreshments are not necessarily united; and the traveller may be more comfortably accommodated without the miserable concomitants of grogshops, than with them. 2. But travellers have a right to select their own refrtshrnents.-Admitted. But they have no right to demand that the public shall provide them. Has the gambling and libertine traveller the right of demanding legalized accommodations for his sensuality and crime? By what right, then, does the drunkard claim it? 3. But we plead only for the moderate dri»kers, and not for drunkards.- The experience of ages proves that moderate drinkers can do without drink for a short period, without inconvenience. And there is not one of them who would not regard the contr ary affirmation as an insult. Besides no vender would engage in the business, if the gain were to be derived sole· ly from the strictly moderate drinker. But, be this as it may,...!...The exist· ence of a rum hole, has always been the nursery of idleness and crime. No traveller, who, without inconvenience to himself, can do without such places,-and he who cannot, is not moderate,-has the right to demand that every cross road, and lane, and corner in the laud shall be filled with nui· sances for his use. 4. But regulate them propedy.-This cannot be done. If they are pro· per and safe, like other good institutions, they will regulate themselves. If unsafe, they cannot be made useful. The moral tendency of licensing a dangerous evil, must always be unfriendly to virtue. Such a system can never, never make vice promotive of morals nor safe to the country. lf in days, when good men, even ministers of the word, and rulers in Zion, and communicants of the church, distilled and sold and bought and used the poison, the expressions came in use, 11 sober as a parson," 11 drunk as a deacon," "fuddled as a churchman ;"-if where respect was paid to law ADDHESS IJV THOMAS 1'. JIUf'\T, 43 and men endeavored to execute its intention!!=, drunkenness incrcasecl until it was clifficult to tell who was sober,-what are we to expect in these days, when vice and abomination walk forth in high places, and men in authority patronise the grog shops, and court their influence? It is ~bout as saf~ to trus tchilclren with powcler in a blacksmith's shop, or brewers wllh nux votmca, as it is to expect that human nature, as it is, and intoxicating drinks ca.n come in contact without producing evil. The experiment to prevent thts evil, by licensing it, has been as signal in its failur~, as it was unwise i~1 its conception. No stranger, nor traveller, has a n ght to demand that tl shall be continued. For their gratification, millions of money have been wasted, hundreds of familes made miserable, thousands of souls ruined. It is time that society refuse to listen to the demand of the sensualist, who cannot move, unless rivers of beer, and lakes of wine, and oceans of gin b~e provided for him during his journey. It may rcrresh him, but it is disease and death for the families and neighborhoods that may be so kind to him, and cruel to themselves, as to furnish such accommodalions. It is a subject worthy of examination, whelher the establishment of inns does more harm or good. How far clo they tend to increase or to diminish the virtues of the heart? Is it not possible that they injure the land, in a way not much observed, on account of the silence of its operation? No allusion is made here to the otTers of temptation to idleness and dissipa· tion, nor to the character of many often connectecl with license houses. But investigations may show, that the general tendency of public houses may be to weaken, and, ultimately, to destroy some of the mos~ lovely and wholesome requisitions of the gos pel. And whatever has th1s tendency ought to be watched with unwearied vigilance, and to be gl~arded with most jealous care. It is admittecl, that public houses of some kmd may be necessary or useful. But too much anxiety for travellers' accommodation, and too little regard for go::1pel principles, may have beetl manifested in this matter. Docs providing a grog shop or a tavern for s trangers, fulfil the injunction of Christ, " lle not forgetful to entertain strangers"? Sup· pose Abraham had sent his travellers to an Inn, would he ".thereby. have entertained an angel"? lt is somewhat doubtful whether this duty Is .~er· formed by licensing a public house, in which the stranger may tarry, tl he have money, or be turned out, if he have not. Jlgain : Does the sencling of strangers to public houses fulfil the command, '' lle given to hospitality''? If so, great i8- the hospitality of some countries, and great the h~ly ?he~ dience of some Christians. For throughout the whole land, almost lll s1ght of each other, are these hospitable insti tutions to be founcl, where the stranger, at his own cost and charges, may be laid under a weight of gratitude to those whose houses and furn itu re cost thousands of dollars, yet who have no room, nor bed, nor meat for him, whom his Saviour commands them to enter· tain, and to whom they must be hospitable. Docs not the multiply ing of public houses furnish an excuse for the neglect of the Christian duty of hos· pitality? Do they not lead to avarice and selfishness! and, in this way, do more harm than they ever did good? When in the South, taverns were few and far between, strangers were gladly received, kindly treated, and found a home and friend, wherever they went. The superabundance of the gifts of a kind providence was chccrrully shared with the traveller. And the intercourse, and interchange of kindly feelings and ofllces, the guest receiving hospitality, and the host information anti instruction, often formed friendships stronger than death. But these days are fading away. Taverns are springing up every where. lluttcr, and eggs, and feathers, and oats, and grass, and time, arc now becoming money; and the traveller may now find at one end of the union the hospitality he lefl at the other, which mostly |