The Daily Herald

FOR THE HERALD.
Messrs. Editors:-

A writer in your paper of Tuesday, who signs himself a "Temperate Member," and professes actually to belong to the Young Men's Temperance Society, has made some bold assertions, which perhaps deserve a passing notice. He appears to be very much attached to fermented drinks, and endeavors to make a bluster because the writer of the late Report of said Society took the liberty to suggest a few thoughts relative to that part of the temperance question. If this "temperate" lover of "fermented drinks" had condescended to give us the why and the wherefore, instead of making simple assertions, his failure to establish the principles he has assumed, would, no doubt, have spared us the necessity of taking any notice of his article: but as it is, I wish briefly to expose the fallacy of his assertion, and leave it for the public to judge who is the real "temperate member," and who is "utterly inconsistent with common sense."

In the first place, I doubt very much whether your correspondent is really a member of the Young Men's Temperance Society. The spirit which he manifests is strongly indicative of hostility to the Temperance enterprise, and the principles which he avows show plainly that he is behind the great body of the active supporters of the good work. But if he is in reality a "member," I think it will be made to appear that such members are not very much calculated to advance the Temperance cause.

Your correspondent protests against that part of the report which refers to "fermented liquors," for three reasons; 1st, "Because it is wholly unauthorized by the Constitution." This is a new discovery, indeed; I have yet to learn that those whose duty it is to draw up reports of this kind are to be trammelled by considerations of this kind. I had supposed, judging from the general practice, that it was their privilege to make any suggestions which they deemed important to the furtherance of the great object for which we are laboring; and it was upon this principle that the writer of the report proceeded. It is clear to the minds of many, and in fact to most who have carefully examined the subject, that the continuance of the use of fermented drinks on the part of the professed friends of temperance, constitutes a mighty obstacle to the ultimate triumph of the reform, and that if we, who make these professions, are still to cling with all the pertinacity of a regular grog drinker to the stimulant found in fermented drinks,—the superstructure which has been so nobly begun will totter to the ground. Such being the case, we cannot see how the constitution was very much disregarded by a simple allusion to the subject. If we are not to be bound perpetually by the principles established by our predecessors, and fold our hands with a quiet acquiescence in the sentiment, that doctrines once believed are never to be abandoned, then, of course, propositions for a change, and suggestions of improvement, must spring from some source;— and if so, to whom does this duty more appropriately belong than to the writer of the annual report? The society at large are not deemed to be committed to any particular sentiment, because that sentiment appears in the report; it appears there in the form of a suggestion, addressed to them for their careful and candid consideration. And may we not hope that in the present case the suggestions in question will be heeded, and those who really love the temperance cause will be willing, for its benefit, to deny themselves the useless indulgence in fermented drinks?

The 2d reason offered by your correspondent is, that "the report is a gross and unwarrantable misrepresentation of the declared opinions of a great majority of the members of the society." In reply, we simply say it is no such thing: for in the first place, it does not profess in this particular to represent the views of the society. This is evident from the fact that an appeal is addressed to them upon the subject, which, of course, presupposes that they are not already upon that ground. In the next place, your correspondent, although he pretends to know all about nine tenths of the society, does not know any thing about their sentiments; and when he speaks of the declared opinions of a large majority of the society, he is talking of that he knows no more about than others, which is just nothing at all —since no opinion has ever been declared by the society upon the subject.

But in the 3d and last "reason" given by your "Temperate Member" he rises to a still higher sphere, and assumes the prerogative of determining what is and what is not. With all the self consequence of infallibility, he says that the doctrine of abstinence from fermented drinks is utterly inconsistent with reason and common sense. Now we ask, who told you so? We dont say that such is not the fact, but propose with all due deference to the opinion of your correspondent, who lays down his assertions with so much confidence, to mention an idea or two, which may possibly be worth
reasoning. But as this article is already sufficiently long, I must defer this part of the subject until your next. I will then, with your permission, suggest a few plain thoughts—partly for the benefit of a 'Temperate Member'—and partly for 'Justice,' who is as 'fat as a porpoise'—and partly for all others whom it may chance to concern.

COLD WATER.