8 TTbe Conservative *
BORROWS GIFT.
Tljorc iiuiHt be times when sorrow cometh to
us ,
All else must wait while she her message
brings ;
All hearts must bow through moments of her
staying
While o'er the sight her somber veil she flings.
Bright joys depart beyond our clouded vision ,
Gleaming and fair they seem but shadows
dim.
Sunlight ia drear when sorrow cometh to us
Bearing a cup embittered to the brim.
Always alone wo take whato'cr she bringeth ,
Anguish and pain that each alone must bear.
Always alone each heart must outer darkness ,
Groping , it shrinks from all that's hidden
there.
There must bo times when sorrow cometh to
us I
Broken and crushed our spirits weary lie ;
Long will she dwell near pathways she has
shadowed ,
Oft will return to breathe again a sigh.
Vat , with her touch there falls a heavenly-
sweetness
Filling the heart that once beside her lives ;
Sweetness that grows to love for all the
stricken ;
Tenderness springs from out the woo she gives.
MAIIY FHENCH MOKTON.
THE ETHICS IN THE I.IOUOB QUES
V >
TION.
( CONTINUED FIIOM I ABT WEEK. )
Having stated briefly , but it is to be
hoped clearly , the nature of cosmic
ethics and principle of natural morality ,
it now remains to consider the liquor
question in the light of those principles.
The ethics in the liquor question must
be looked upon in three directions , viz. ,
the consumer or individual drinker , the
751 dealer and the public. While the con
sumer is an ethical factor to the dealer ,
the liquor business itself may be un
ethical to every one connected with it
and to the uou- drinking public. It is a
singular business in which no one inter
ested has any liking for the other. The
dealer is the only one to whom the busi
ness can possibly be ethical. It is self-
preserving to the dealer when he does
not consume his own poison. In so far
and no farther does his ethical responsi
bility lie. He has absolutely none , either
to the public or the consumer , save not
to sell too poisonous poison and give the
consumer the customary money's worth.
The public recognizes the business as a
necessity and the consumer's wants as
legitimate. It gives the dealer permis
sion to fill the consumer to his satis
faction. The public charges the dealer
for filling a want , it , itself , creates.
Here we run up against the rock on
which accepted morality founders. It
places almost all the moral responsibility
on the liquor dealer. It looks upon him
as a disreputable person , utterly regard
less of his individual character. The
public ignores the fact that he does a
business which it licenses because it
considers it necessary. If the liquor
dealer does not drink his own poison
and fulfills the public demand according
to the law , and thereby is self-support
\
ing , he is the only ethical factor in the
whole business ; ( all who make a living
out of the liquor business are included. )
This is important enough to be repeated.
The liquor dealer is ethical , the business
is ethical for him , so long as it supports
him , and he does not lessen his support
ing power by drinking the poison.
The Immoral Factors.
The only immoral factors in connection
with the liquor or any other business
are those who are injured by it. Self-
evidently , these are only those who
drink and the public that pays for all
the crime , pauperism , and misery that
result from it. The self-supporting
tax-paying public , largely non-drinkers ,
eventually pays for every drop of liquor
that is drunk. That statement is found
ed on the Gibraltar of cosmic ethics. It
is invulnerable. The dealer who does a
paying business in filling the public de-
maud is on the same level as the grocer ,
doctor , merchant , banker and minister.
The demand exists. He has the ability
to meet it. He meets it and yet has
might enough to control himself and
tastes not , no matter how much he
handles. If in undertaking anything ,
the individual does it to a self-maintain
ing degree and in no way imperils his
health , or excites no limiting environ
mental reactions on the free use of his
abilities for himself , that individual is
ethical. The fact that the business it
self may prove dangerous to others has
nothing whatever to do with the moral
ity of the proprietors. In this sense , it
would be equally just to say that the
owner of a powder mill is a bad and im
moral man , because the mill is more or
less dangerous to the community in its
vicinity. The people desire the powder
and the man fills the want. It supports
him. It is ethical to him. If the mill
blows up through carelessness of employ
ees that does not make the proprietor an
immoral man. If it burns down the
town the unethical element is the public
that wanted the mill there because it
would bring business at great risk and
the workers who took their lives in their
hands in going into such a business.
The same is true of the liquor business.
One more point.
The Liquor Dealer and the 1'ubllc.
It may be asked , "but has the liquor
dealer no responsibility to the commun
ity as a member thereof ? " In order to
"kill two birds with one stone" the con
sumer may also be included in the same
question. The public recognizes it as
one of the "God given rights" of man
to drink all the liquor he pleases so long
as he does not disturb the public peace
by undue noise , quarreling , murder , or
arson. By its acts the public exonerates
dealer and consumer of all responsibil
ity. The public admits , and gives per
mission , that the consumer may keep
royally full ; he may not save a cent ; he
may live on some one else ; he may re
duce his family to begging ; and still the
public says he has not forfeited his God
given liberty to keep "full as a lord"
and be as happy as King Rum can make
him , so long as he does not maliciously
or noisily disturb its repose and somnol
ent moral indifference. The public
cares not an iota about the dealer so long
as ho pays his license or the consumer of
liquor so long as he disturbs not its
quietude. The public is perfectly con
tent to pay the bills. If the public does
not hold the consumer morally respons
ible until he becomes either a public
nuisance or has actually committed
some overt act , how is it possible to
claim that the dealer has a moral re
sponsibility to the public ? If the public
admits it to be one of the inalienable
rights of man to get full and keep full ,
within the mentioned limits , and , rec
ognizing this privilege as a public neces
sity , licenses or permits the business ,
what absurdity it is to talk of the "mor
al responsibility of the liquor dealer. "
Public Immorality.
The public being the one that finally
gets hurt , it is according to common
ethics and rational morality that the
public should protect itself. If the pub
lic has not the might to protect itself , if
it has not the might to control its busi
ness to its protection then the public is
a moral imbecile and should suffer the
fate of the unfit. It does. It pays the
bills. It weakens itself. In the ethical
sense the public has no right to exist so
far as the liquor business is concerned.
It shows no ability to protect itself. It
is worse than the consumer whom it
permits to ruin himself. It only seeks
to control him after he has ruined him
self at its cost. The position of the pub
lic in reference to the liquor question is
that of the most insane and determined
suicide. The public practically makes
and supports the drunkard and all the
crime and misery resulting from his in
sane acts. The public is indescribably
the most immoral.
Alcohol as a Medicine.
While this is a study of the ethics in
the liquor question it may be interpolat
ed that while alcoholic preparations have
preservative value for dead animal tis
sues , no one has the audacity to claim
that their protracted use threatens any
thing but injury to the living tissues.
Alcohol is a poison. Like every other
poison ic requires a certain amount and
a definite degree of action to exert a
strictly poisonous effect. There is not
a reputable and intelligent physician
there are plenty of 'doctors' who are re
putable but by no means intelligent
who does not know that there is as
much danger of a patient's acquiring
the liquor habit from its medicinal use
as there is danger from the use of mor
phine , cocaine , chloral or other poisons
of that nature. All such physicians are
as delicately sensitive in prescribing al-
